Preamble

The House met at Half-past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Jet Engines (Foreign Sales)

Mr. Donner: asked the Minister of Supply when the decision to sell the Rolls Royce Nene jet engine to the U.S.S.R. was taken; how many such engines have been sold to the U.S.S.R. and, separately, to Czechoslovakia or any other country under Soviet influence; at what price they were sold; and whether it is intended to make any further deliveries to these countries.

Mr. Piratin: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask your guidance with regard to the expression
to Czechoslovakia or any other country under Soviet influence,
which is an imputation that that country is under Soviet influence. In view of the fact that we are constantly told by the Clerk at the Table that any statement contained in a Question must be a statement of fact, is the expression used in this Question in Order?

Mr. Speaker: I should have thought it was a statement of fact, and is, therefore, in Order.

Major Guy Lloyd: Further to that point of Order. Would it not have been much more accurate had the words "dominance and domination" been used instead of "influence"?

Mr. Piratin: The next time I wish to put down a Question about Greece, a number of which have been rejected by the Clerk at the Table—will it be in Order if I use the expression: "Greece under the domination of Britain and America"?

Mr. Speaker: Certainly not, because that is not a face.

Mr. Piratin: Further to that point of Order——

Mr. Speaker: This is not a point of Order but merely a political argument, which I think ought to stop.

Mr. Piratin: With great respect, Sir——

Mr. Speaker: It is not a point of Order and I will not have it pursued.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. G. R. Strauss): Messrs. Rolls Royce were given permission in September, 1946, to sell 10 Nene engines to Russia and in March, 1947, to sell a further 15. None has been sold to Czechoslovakia or to any other country which could be described as under Soviet influence. No further sales are contemplated. The selling price of the engines was fixed under a commercial contract.

Mr. Donner: But does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the sale of this particular engine to Russia saved that country years of research; and how does he justify that sale?

Mr. Strauss: As the hon. Member is probably aware, none of these engines was on the secret list.

Sir Waldron Smithers: In view of the rising tide of Communism, will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that no more munitions of war of any kind will be sold, but all will be kept for defence purposes? Will he give that undertaking?

Mr. Strauss: That is a very broad question. As I said in reply to the Question put down, no further sales of this engine are contemplated.

Sir W. Smithers: I asked about all munitions of war.

Mr. Edgar Granville: Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that these engines were not on the secret list at the time of the sale?

Mr. Strauss: Yes, Sir.

Commander Noble: asked the Minister of Supply how many British jet engines have been supplied to the U.S.S.R.; and in which years.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Fifty-five jet engines were supplied to the U.S.S.R. during 1947.

Commander Noble: Can the Minister say, in view of his statement that no further sales are contemplated the reason for this change of policy?

Mr. Strauss: One of the reasons is that we have not completed our inquiries.

Mr. Blackburn: Will my right hon. Friend make it quite plain that, so long as the present cold war continues, we have no intention whatsoever of supplying any kind of warlike materials either to the Soviet Union or to any of her satellites?

Mr. Speaker: This Question asks how many engines have been supplied, not about the cold war.

Iron and Steel Orders (Breaches)

Commander Noble: asked the Minister of Supply what were the total quantities of iron and steel involved in the 11 cases constituting breaches of the Iron and Steel Orders already investigated by his price investigations office since 1st January, 1946, and in the nine cases still under investigation, respectively.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: In the 11 cases already investigated, 2,122 tons 4 cwts. of iron and steel were involved. In eight of the cases under investigation, 5,114 tons of iron and steel and an unknown quantity of steel tubing are involved. In the ninth case the quantity of material offered was not specified.

Commander Noble: Could the Minister say whether the steel referred to in these offers did in all cases actually exist?

Mr. Strauss: We have not even information on that.

Gas Turbine Engines

Commander Noble: asked the Minister of Supply what expenditure has been incurred on the development of turbine engines for aircraft since 1st January, 1941; and what types of turbine engines are now in production as a result.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I regret that it would not be in the public interest to give the amount spent on the development of gas

turbine engines. The engines at present in production are, in the turbo-jet class, the Derwent V, Nene II, Goblin II and Ghost I; and, in the propeller turbine class, the Python I.

Steel Bolts (Imports)

Mr. A. R. W. Low: asked the Minister of Supply in what quantity and for what purpose are steel bolts being imported from the U.S.A.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Seven hundred and twenty-six tons, for use in the manufacture of Ferguson tractors.

Mr. Low: Is this permission to import steel bolts generally given, or has it only been given for the purposes the right hon. Gentleman named?

Mr. Strauss: No, Sir. It is not generally given. It is only given if a very special case is made out.

Engineering Standardisation (Committee)

Mr. Albu: asked the Minister of Supply if he will make a statement on arrangements for encouraging standardisation in the engineering industry.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Yes, Sir. I realise there are limits to the extent to which this process should be carried, but I am convinced—as are my colleagues in the Government responsible for industries which use engineering products—that reduction in variety of engineering products and components could with advantage be taken very much further; I believe this will bring about increases in productivity and a saving in spares and stocks, and will effect very considerable other economies of substantial and lasting benefit to the country.
This is a matter which needs expert investigation and I have therefore decided to appoint a Committee drawn from industry to advise me. The Committee, as well as consulting with the British Standards Institution, who have promised their support, will consult with the makers of the products which come under review, and with the users whose demands for special types of goods set the pace for the makers.
Sir Ernest Lemon has accepted an invitation to be Chairman of the


Committee and Sir Ewart Smith, Deputy-Chairman. The names of the other members are:

Mr. Stanley Harley.
Mr. Jack Tanner.
Mr. T. H. Windibank.
I am anxious that this Committee's tasks will not duplicate those of the Committee of the Anglo-American Council on Productivity, set up to examine the development of specialisation in the production of parts and components in the United States and to see to what extent it is applicable in this country. I have accordingly consulted with the British Section of the Anglo-American Council to ensure that there is no overlap and that the two Committees keep in touch. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the Committee's terms of reference.

Mr. Edgar Granville: Is it contemplated that the standardisation envisaged will be upon the basis of American measurements or British measurements and if it is upon American measurements, will he give an assurance, in view of the possible changes in industry in this country, that British industry will be represented on this Committee?

Mr. Strauss: I do not think either is envisaged. What we have in mind is simplification of types and components and a reduction of the number at present being used.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does this also apply to agricultural machinery?

Mr. Strauss: Yes, Sir.

Following are the terms of reference:
To investigate, in consultation with the British Standards Institution, and appropriate organisations, the methods by which manufacturers and users of engineering products determine whether any reduction in the variety of products manufactured is desirable in the light of technical, commercial and other considerations; to report whether these methods are adequate and what, if any, further measures should be taken by industry or by the Government to ensure that such simplifications as are determined are put into effect.

Typewriter Supplies

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the Minister of Supply what are the present arrangements with regard to the supply of typewriters to the boards recently set up to operate nationalised industries; and to

what extent these boards received more favourable treatment than private business undertakings.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Following the revocation in July, 1948, of the Supply of Typewriters (Restriction) (No. 2) Order, 1945, there is no control over the distribution of supplies of typewriters and boards of nationalised industries do not receive more favourable treatment than private business undertakings.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he anticipates larger supplies being made available in the near future, because there is still a great shortage?

Mr. Strauss: Yes, Sir. The manufacture of typewriters is increasing quite rapidly.

Mr. William Shepherd: How is the Minister able to say that the boards do not have more favourable treatment than other individuals?

Mr. Strauss: There is no Governmental preferential treatment of any sort.

Machine Tools (Sale)

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Minister of Supply what reserve was placed on items to be sold by auction at the recent sales of machine tools.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Reserve prices were placed on certain tools to avoid uneconomic sales. Publication of these prices would prejudice sales at future auctions where similar machines were being offered.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: If there were reserve prices, will the Minister explain why, for instance, 35 highly priced machines, costing £2,000 apiece, required for aeroplane grinding, were sold at Stormy Down at an average price of £50 each?

Mr. Strauss: No, Sir—unless the hon. and gallant Member is prepared to give the details, and then I will look into it.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Minister of Supply if he is satisfied that the 9,900 machine tools sold to trade purchasers and holding contractors have not been to any great extent subsequently exported.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Practically all these machine tools were sold with a proviso that they should not be re-sold within 12 months, and, in the case of Lend-Lease tools, export was forbidden for a period of five years after the end of the war with Germany. I have no reason to believe that these conditions of sale have not been observed.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: In view of previous answers Ministers have given that these tools have not been exported, and that the only regulation the Minister has deals with tools for small arms, can the right hon. Gentleman give any guarantee that these tools have not been exported?

Mr. Strauss: I have no evidence that they have been exported, and I understand that there is practically no demand for them.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: How can the right hon. Gentleman have any evidence, since he has no power whatever to see that these tools are not disposed of?

Mr. Strauss: If the hon. and gallant Member has any evidence that the undertaking given by the purchasers of these tools has been broken, I will go into it, but in the absence of such information, I do not propose to take any steps.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

Ministry's Staff

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: asked the Minister of Works what steps are being taken, in view of the recent elimination of controls on a number of building materials, to reduce to the utmost the number of officials in his Department and in the regional organisation who are responsible for handling these controls; and what is the number of officials who have already been released for absorption by productive industry since the announcement of the elimination of these controls on 1st November.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Key): A careful review has been made of the number of staff who can be released as a result of the elimination on 1st November of the control over the distribution of building materials. Eighteen have already been released from the Ministry or transferred to vacancies on other work. More will be released shortly.

Mr. Cooper: While appreciating that reply, is my right hon. Friend aware that building merchants and other firms, including at least one written report which my right hon. Friend has seen, complain of the apparently excessive amount of staff in his Department, and is he prepared to appoint some independent experts to advise him whether any reductions can be made?

Mr. Key: No, Sir. I regard that as wholly unnecessary.

Mr. Chetwynd: Can the Minister say whether the reductions have taken place in the regions or at headquarters?

Mr. Key: They have taken place in the regions.

Sir W. Smithers: Have you noticed, Mr. Speaker, that common sense has at last dawned upon the mind of one Socialist?

War Works (Land Restoration)

Mr. Donner: asked the Minister of Works whether he is aware that numerous sites of former British and U.S. hutted camps on good agricultural land are now covered with concrete and weeds; that the clearing and restoring of such sites is practicable only for large contractors equipped with modern implements; that costs involved require clearing on a national scale; and whether he will consider undertaking such action in the national interest rather than settling the matter by payment of compensation to individuals unable to undertake this work themselves.

Mr. Key: I am aware that it has not yet been possible to restore considerable areas of land which have been used for camps and other war works, and I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Western Dorset (Mr. Digby) on 28th April, 1947. Where public interest is involved, and the compensation paid or payable is not enough for necessary restoration, application may be made for assistance under the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act. This would take the form either of increased compensation or of actual reinstatement by the Government. It is for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture to say whether land affected should be restored for agricultural purposes.

Mr. Donner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a considerable area of land is affected, and that we cannot continue to allow this land to produce neither food nor timber? Under these circumstances, why did he write to a constituent of mine saying that there are no grounds for removing temporary works at public expense?

Mr. Key: If compensation has been paid, it is for those people to whom it has been paid to remove the works.

Mr. Donner: Is it not far more important to restore the land?

Brigadier Medlicott: When the Minister is looking into this matter, will he also bear in mind the condition of the buildings on these sites, many of which seem to have been left completely unattended? This has exposed them to deterioration and damage, of which there is at least one example in Norfolk?

Mr. Key: If I can be given examples, I will have them looked into, but it may be that they have already been transferred to the people who own the land in question and that therefore it is not my responsibility.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Refugee Association, Hanover

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what grounds permission has been given for the association of German exiles recently established at Hanover to include officials alleged to be representing German interests in Hungary, and other Balkan States.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend on 15th November. It was stated then that the licensing and control of all German refugee associations in the British zone was now a German responsibility.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Does my hon. Friend not realise that to allow associations to be established, which have as one of their objectives revision of the existing arrangements for the frontiers of Germany, is highly unsatisfactory, and that they must be made to concentrate on the

job of looking after refugee problems if the position is to be helped?

Mr. Mayhew: If my hon. Friend has any evidence of revisionist propaganda, I will look into it, but so long as these associations confine themselves to their proper aims, I think they can do a very useful job.

Mr. Bramall: Are we to understand that, for whatever purpose these associations were licensed, the Allied authorities have no control over them?

Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir. The Military Governor has over-riding powers.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give the names and political antecedents of those Germans representing the territories and populations in Eastern Europe comprised in the association for exiles recently established at Hanover.

Mr. Mayhew: As has already been explained, the licensing of these organisations is a matter for the German authorities. If my hon. Friend has information regarding the political antecedents or present activities of any of the persons concerned, which he thinks should be in the possession of the Foreign Office, I shall be glad to examine it.

Mr. Bramall: Is my hon. Friend aware that the solution of the refugee problem in Western Germany is being seriously held up because this refugee organisation is bringing pressure to bear on the German Governments not to seek a solution, because they feel that that would jeopardise their propaganda that the only solution is to send these refugees back to Eastern Europe, where they came from?

Mr. Mayhew: I have no information to that effect, but I agree that it is an important subject and I should be very willing to consider any evidence which is sent to me.

Exit Permits

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what grounds exit permits have been refused to Inga Birgit and her father, Dr. Walter Zimmermann, of Kiel, who wish to rejoin the latter's wife now resident in Malmö.

Mr. Mayhew: I am making inquiries in Germany, and will write to my hon. Friend.

Ruhr Industries

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give the names of the trustees who will control the Ruhr coal, iron and steel industries.

Mr. Mayhew: I understand that no appointments have yet been made. The names of the trustees will be made public when they are appointed. To remove any misapprehensions I should perhaps explain that the trustees will not "control" the industries. Their function is to hold the physical and other assets (including any profits) in trust until a German Government has settled the question of future ownership. The control of the coal industry remains with the existing Anglo-American Coal Control Group. In the case of the steel industry, control is transferred from British hands to a new Anglo-American Steel Control Group.

Mr. Hynd: Although the trustees have not yet been appointed can my hon. Friend now contradict headlines in the French Press to the effect that we are handing back the industries to the Krupps family?

Mr. Mayhew: That scarcely needs a denial.

Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: As the French reservations and fears do seem to be well founded, will my hon. Friend give an undertaking that these ordinances will not be put into effect until sympathetic consideration has been given to their representations?

Mr. Mayhew: The general subject of the control of the Ruhr is under discussion with the French Government, among other subjects.

ARRESTS, AUSTRIA (SOVIET REPLY)

Professor Savory: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply has been received from the Soviet authorities by the British representative on the Control Commission of Austria to his protests against the repeated abduction of representatives of the Austrian Government.

Mr. Mayhew: The Soviet replies have been very unsatisfactory. The only assurance regarding the arrest of Police Inspector Marek in June which the Soviet High Commissioner would give, was that he would inform the Allied Council and the Austrian Government of the results of his investigation of the charges. When reminded of this undertaking on 10th September, apart from expressing surprise at our interest, he would only say that he had not forgotten his promise.
On 5th November, Frau Dr. Ottilinger, who is the official in charge of the Austrian Ministry of Planning, was arrested. In the Allied Council on 12th November, the British High Commissioner refused to admit the assertion of the Soviet High Commissioner that this was a matter solely within his competence, and declared that such irregular activities on the part of the Occupying Powers brought the whole Allied Administration in Austria into contempt. If any one element had cause to complain of the activities of an Austrian official, there was a perfectly simple remedy, namely, to place the matter in the hands of the Austrian authorities, and, if the action taken was not regarded as acceptable, to lay the matter before the Allied Council. General Galloway asked that Frau Dr. Ottilinger be handed over to the Austrian authorities, together with the accusations against her and any evidence supporting them.
The only reaction to this statement was a threat to continue to make such arrests, on the grounds that Austrian officials were being employed by the Western Powers for espionage against the Soviet.

Professor Savory: Is it not possible to take effective steps, in conjunction with the American and French representatives, to put a stop to these continual deportations and arrests, which are making the functioning of the Austrian Government quite impossible?

Mr. Mayhew: We have always been supported, in the representations we have made, by the United States and French Governments. I cannot say more, however, than that we shall continue to use all the influence we have with the Soviet authorities to stop these arrests.

Mr. Paget: Does not my hon. Friend think that this continual kidnapping of people in this area is quite intolerable? Cannot they be given proper protection?

Mr. Mayhew: We are doing what we can to establish more civilised conditions.

Sir Ronald Ross: Could not the key members of the Austrian organisation, whose arrests have been in order to sabotage that organisation, be given protection by the other Powers?

ARAB REFUGEES (RELIEF)

Mr. Thomas Reid: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what response he has had from other Governments to his offers that the British Government would advance £1 million for the relief of Palestinian Arabs if other Governments subscribed proportional sums.

Mr. Mayhew: The United Nations General Assembly unanimously adopted on 19th November a resolution urging all Governments to contribute funds and supplies for the relief of Arab refugees. Before the adoption of this resolution the French Government announced that they would contribute in cash or in kind a sum of 500 million francs. So far as I am aware, no other specific commitments have been made. His Majesty's Government hope that all Governments will now announce their contributions at an early date.

Mr. Reid: Will my hon. Friend instruct our representatives at U.N.O. to urge all those Governments who voted for partition, which has caused all this misery, to subscribe?

Mr. Mayhew: We have taken the lead in urging all Governments to subscribe as much as they can to this appeal.

Sir Frank Sanderson: Will the hon. Gentleman do everything possible to bring relief to distressed Arabs in Palestine?

Mr. Mayhew: Yes, Sir; I gave an account in a recent Adjournment Debate of what His Majesty's Government have done.

FOREIGN TRIALS (BRITISH INTERVENTION)

Mr. Pritt: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the principles on which his Department acts in deciding whether or not to make representations to foreign Governments in relation to trials in their countries, seeing that, in October and November, 1922, the British Minister in Athens twice demanded that the Government should stop the court-martial trial of Gounaris and others, under threat of a rupture of diplomatic relations, Lord Curzon sent an officer to Athens to make the same demand, and ultimately relations were broken off, whilst in the recent case of Abatielos and others, he has refused to take any steps.

Mr. Mayhew: In general, His Majesty's Government refrain from intervening in foreign trials except where British interests or their treaty obligations are involved. My right hon. Friend cannot accept as a parallel the action by Lord Curzon in 1922 referred to by the hon. and learned Member, which was concerned with the execution of Ministers on grounds of incompetence by an unconstitutional military junta.

Mr. Pritt: Is the only difference that those were Ministers and members of a particular class, whereas the people involved here are good trade unionists, and were good fighters for the Allied cause?

Mr. Mayhew: Another difference is that then a junta was involved, and that now there is a properly elected Government.

Mr. Pritt: Does the hon. Gentleman say solemnly, and with a sense of responsibility, that the Government of Greece is anything but a puppet of two Great Powers?

UNITED NATIONS (SOVIET DISARMAMENT PROPOSALS)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will instruct our representatives at U.N.O. to propose the abolition of conscription in all countries as a reply to the proposals on disarmament recently put forward by Mr. Vishinsky.

Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir.

Mr. Hughes: Does my hon. Friend realise that ordinary people in all countries, who are dragged into military machines against their will, would welcome such a proposal? Would he not consider it as useful counter-propaganda to the proposals of Mr. Vishinsky?

Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir, when one State makes a propaganda initiative of this kind, it does not mean that others must make propaganda initiatives in reply.

TRANSJORDAN (AIRCRAFT)

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what assistance in the shape of planes, equipment and personnel has been given to the Transjordan Government in connection with the recent formation of a Transjordan Air Force, as announced by the Transjordan authorities on 1st November, 1948.

Dr. Comyns: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many planes and other aviation equipment have been sent to the Government of Transjordan from 29th May, 1948, to 15th July, 1948, and from 15th July, 1948, to date; and for what purpose.

Mr. Mayhew: The answer is "None, Sir." Permission was given to Arab Airways, before the embargo resolution, to export a number of small civil passenger aircraft and spare engines.

Mr. Janner: Does that mean that the statement that was officially made in Transjordan, that there is now an air force, is not correct?

Mr. Mayhew: I believe that the term "air arm" was used by King Abdullah, but to which aircraft it referred, I do not know.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Milk (Old People)

Mr. Gerald Williams: asked the Minister of Food if there is now a possibility of increasing the milk ration to old people.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): I am sorry, but our milk supplies are not yet sufficient to permit us to allow extra milk to old people.

Mr. Williams: Does the hon. Lady appreciate that that answer is very unsatisfactory to old people? If she cannot grant an increase now, will she bear in mind this priority when milk supplies increase as a result of increased feeding-stuffs?

Dr. Summerskill: I realise that it is unsatisfactory, but the hon. Gentleman must remember that there are three million people in the country over 70 years of age, and that if we made this extra allocation it would mean reducing the ration of non-priority groups.

Fish Meal

Mr. G. Williams: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that the production of fish meal fell by 32 per cent. between 1937 and 1947; what is the reason for this decline; and, in view of the high protein content of fish meal and the need for increasing the numbers of pigs and poultry, if he will take steps to make a greater quantity of this food available to farmers.

Dr. Summerskill: Production of fish meal as a feedingstuff is now 75 per cent. of the estimated pre-war level. As to the second and third parts of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd, on 17th November.

Mr. Williams: Will the hon. Lady tell us whether it is true that there are factories in Aberdeen, Grimsby and other places for dealing with cods' heads and other by-products of fish, and whether they are working anywhere near to capacity? Can the hon. Lady say how they could be made more useful?

Dr. Summerskill: Unfortunately, there is a shortage of fish waste. A practice has grown up of beheading fish at sea, and we are trying to devise some scheme to prevent this.

Mr. Williams: Hurry up and do it.

Fish Friers' Licences, Blackpool

Mr. Low: asked the Minister of Food how many new licences have been issued to fish friers in Blackpool since 1st September; and how many have been given allocations of fat up to 3 cwt. and how many have been given higher allocations.

Dr. Summerskill: No new fish friers' licences have been granted in Blackpool since 1st September. The second part of the hon. Member's Question does not, therefore, arise.

Sugar Ration

Mr. T. Reid: asked the Minister of Food if, in view of the 1948–49 world record crop of sugar and the Marshall Aid appropriation of 25 million dollars for purchase of sugar by Britain, he will increase the sugar ration.

Dr. Summerskill: My right hon. Friend announced on 1st November that the weekly domestic sugar ration would be increased from eight to 10 ozs. from 5th December next, that from this date jam will be de-rationed, the sweets ration increased from three to four ozs. and that larger supplies of cakes, biscuits, syrup and other items will be available. No other increase is possible at present.

Maize Meal (Eire)

Sir R. Ross: asked the Minister of Food what additional quantities of maize meal he has arranged to have exported to Eire as pig food; and whether this involves any diminution of the supply to pig producers in the United Kingdom.

Dr. Summerskill: No arrangements have been made to export any maize meal to Eire, and none has been exported during recent years. The second part of the Question does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. Hurd: Can the hon. Lady say whether we have made available to Eire any dollars for the purpose of buying maize in America?

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Gentleman is probably thinking of the arrangement made with Eire to lend her some maize which is to be returned by February, 1949.

Danish Bacon (Price)

Sir R. Ross: asked the Minister of Food how the price of bacon bought from Denmark compares with that of United Kingdom bacon.

Dr. Summerskill: The cost of bacon produced in the United Kingdom is at present rather more than the current cost of Danish bacon which is 225s. 0d. per cwt. f.o.b. plus freight and landing charges.

Glucose

Mr. Niall Macpherson: asked the Minister of Food whether he will now decontrol the supply of glucose to manufacturers of confectionery.

Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir.

Mr. Macpherson: Would the hon. Lady be prepared to issue a certain proportion of the sugar allocation to small manufacturers of confectionery in the form of glucose, which would greatly increase the variety that they could manufacture?

Dr. Summerskill: Certain manufacturers do have glucose, but I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the supply of glucose depends on the supply of maize and starch, which is in short supply.

Potatoes (Fish Friers)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Food whether he will now allow potatoes to be supplied to the fish friers throughout the country in order to expedite the utilisation of potato stocks which will not keep in good condition for very long.

Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir. There is no restriction on the quantity of potatoes fish friers may buy.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the hon. Lady aware that many of the fish friers throughout the country still have to go through licensing channels and cannot buy direct from the farms and that in all parts of the country many of the stocks of potatoes are deteriorating and going bad? Are we to understand from her reply that they can go to any farm where there are potatoes for sale and buy them direct from that farm?

Dr. Summerskill: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman knows full well there are 9,500 grower retailers. He is quite right when he says that many people have to buy through a merchant, but that is a pre-war practice which we are still following. He is quite wrong when he says that potatoes are deteriorating all over the place. He need not be afraid; we are keeping an eye on his own potatoes, and we shall have them removed very shortly.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the hon. Lady aware that I am not thinking of my own


potatoes, but I am thinking of those potatoes throughout the country which are deteriorating every day? The Government must do something to clear up the muddle, which is getting like the fog—worse and worse.

Catering Establishments (Bacon)

Mr. Yates: asked the Minister of Food what proportion of available supplies of bacon are allocated to catering establishments and canteens in the country; and if he will give an estimate of the extent to which the curtailment of such allocations would affect the domestic ration.

Dr. Summerskill: Four point nine per cent. of the total supply of bacon was allocated to catering establishments and canteens in 1947. The curtailment of such allocations would not significantly affect the weekly domestic ration.

Mr. Yates: While appreciating that answer, may I ask whether my hon. Friend is aware that there is a very strong feeling in the country on this matter, and would it be possible for the domestic ration to be improved in this way? Would it be possible for a person with a single ration book to get some consideration? May I also ask my hon. Friend whether she is satisfied that the black market is really wiped out in the city of Birmingham?

Dr. Summerskill: My hon. Friend must realise that the amount of bacon allocated to the catering establishments yearly is equivalent to a two weeks' domestic ration, so that if we did take it away from the catering establishments, it would make no appreciable difference to the ordinary domestic consumer.

Eggs

Mr. Gibson: asked the Minister of Food how many eggs are produced annually to the egg stations for distribution by the 458,700 persons who are registered for pig and poultry rations; what is the total number of hens in this country; what is the annual number of eggs imported; and whether he is satisfied that the maximum number of eggs produced by the holders of pig and poultry rations are passed to his Department's egg stations for distribution to the people of this country.

Dr. Summerskill: As the answer is rather long I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Gibson: Is the Minister aware that there is a very widely held belief that a large number of hen eggs are finding their way to the black market, and what steps are the Department taking to try to stop that happening?

Dr. Summerskill: We realise that a number of eggs are not finding their way to the packing stations, and my hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that we are issuing a bonus ration of feeding-stuffs on the basis of the number of eggs which find their way to the stations.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: In regard to the total number of hens in this country, can my hon. Friend tell me how many of these are old hens and have no more use in our national economy and will she consider turning this category of hens over to the care of the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers)?

Dr. Summerskill: I can give my hon. Friend one figure. There are 38 million hens over six months old.

Following is the statement:

One thousand seven hundred and six million eggs were handled by packing stations in Great Britain during the year to 30th September, 1948. Without a good deal of research which I do not think would be justified, I could not state the number of producers supplying these eggs or the extent to which they are registered for pig and poultry rations.

According to the 4th June, 1948, poultry census, there were then about 38 million fowls over six months old on holdings exceeding one acre in Great Britain.

The number of eggs imported into Great Britain in the year to 30th September, 1948, excluding supplies from Northern Ireland, was 1,820 million.

As regards the last part of the Question, I am certainly not satisfied that the potential maximum is being delivered to the packing stations. Every effort, however, is being made within the limits of the resources which can be spared for this work to enforce the regulations and I hope that the recent arrangement under which bonus issues of feedingstuffs will be given on the basis of the number of eggs sent in to the packing stations will have a good effect.

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Food if he is making arrangements for the storage of eggs bought abroad during the season of highest home production next spring so as to ensure than consumers will have a regular supply through the year.

Sir Patrick Hannon: asked the Minister of Food if he has considered the circular memorandum embodying the views of the Poultry Association of Great Britain with regard to the home egg-producing industry in relation to imports, a copy of which has been sent to him; and if he proposes to take appropriate action.

Dr. Summerskill: We are already trying to arrange for eggs to be stored for us in Denmark, Holland and Poland as suggested by the Poultry Association of Great Britain, Ltd., Memorandum. This is an extension of what has been taking place in Canada for some years, but it would be premature to indicate how far it may prove to be practicable.

Special Cheese Ration

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Food in how many cases the extra cheese ration has been refused to self-employed workers in the building trade in rural areas who must necessarily take a packed midday meal to their work; and if he will devise some means of certifying genuine applications so that the self-employed worker may not be deprived of this necessity.

Dr. Summerskill: I regret that no information is available of the number of self-employed workers who have been refused extra cheese. We have already made considerable concessions in the matter of extra cheese to rural building workers and we cannot extend the grant to self-employed workers.

Mr. Hurd: Is it not worth while making a further effort to remove this discrimination against the self-employed worker who is doing the job in exactly the same conditions as the man who has to have an employment card?

Dr. Summerskill: If we made this concession we should also have to make concessions to brickmakers, market-gardeners and smallholders. [HON. MEMBERS; "Why not? "] The reason why

not—and the answer is simple—is that if we continue to make concessions, we shall jeopardise the domestic ration.

Allocations

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Food whether he will consult the National Chamber of Trade and all other appropriate organisations which are representative of large sections of the retailers throughout the country in respect of all food allocation quotas.

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Food why he has abandoned the principle of consultations with representatives of the trade regarding the allocation of food supplies; and how many of these consultations have taken place in the last six months.

Dr. Summerskill: My right hon. Friend cannot undertake to consult trade associations about every allocation of food; he will continue, as in the past to do so on all appropriate occasions. All commodity divisions of the Ministry are in frequent, sometimes daily, consultation with the trade, but it would be impossible to say on how many occasions the question of allocations has been discussed during the past six months.

Mr. De la Bère: Are we to understand that the Government are going to persist in their arbitrary methods of food allocation? Is the hon. Lady aware of the feeling over the allocation to the co-operative societies? Why not seek information from all sources where she will really gain something?

Dr. Summerskill: We do, Sir.

Mr. De la Bère: Will the hon. Lady do it again.

Mr. Frederic Harris: asked the Minister of Food whether in view of his decision to increase certain allocations to co-operative societies, the former basis of allocation on a pre-war standard is no longer generally applicable to food manufacturers.

Dr. Summerskill: Recent decisions in respect of co-operative societies relate only to the additional supplies of sugar made available to certain of the food manufacturing industries. Basic quotas remain unaffected except where, as in the case of preserves, a new principle of allocation has been adopted.

Mr. Harris: Does not the hon. Lady appreciate that the basis of nearly nine years ago is becoming out of date? I sincerely hope that the hon. Lady will consider that point, in view of the decision taken lately in regard to co-operative societies, and that she may consider it worth while to reconsider the general system of the datum period.

Dr. Summerskill: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are very much concerned with the matter and that we are trying to devise another scheme.

Retailers' Licences

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of Food when he proposes to make an order to amend S.I., 1948, No. 2319, as promised on 10th November.

Dr. Summerskill: My right hon. Friend will in the next three or four days be amending this order.

Sir J. Mellor: Will the hon. Lady say whether the amending order will amend the Licensing of Retailers' Order, No. 2234, in the schedule of which are some objectionable provisions?

Dr. Summerskill: Yes, Sir.

Imported Snoek

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Food the cost of imported snoek, as compared with the cost of other imported fish and British herring, respectively.

Dr. Summerskill: We are negotiating for supplies of canned fish and therefore it would not be in the public interest to disclose these prices. Snoek can be bought cheaper than Group III salmon, but costs more than herring.

Sir T. Moore: While acknowledging that under the persuasive influence of the hon. Lady's skilled cooks this substance can be made quite palatable—indeed very palatable—may I ask whether she is satisfied that the ordinary housewife, without the assistance or the gadgets which are necessary to make it palatable, can secure the same result? Furthermore, may I ask whether it is really to the advantage of the people as a whole that snoek should be taken in at the expense of the more succulent and vitamin-full herring?

Dr. Summerskill: I must congratulate the hon. and gallant Member upon his ability to discard his prejudices and to judge snoek on its merits. I think that if he reads our recipes and consults our excellent cooks, he will discover that the ordinary housewife can make snoek up into agreeable dishes. Herring is bought, but snoek does provide a further variety.

Dr. Segal: Will my hon. Friend tell the House that she proposes to stop her little game of "snoeker" and give us salmon at I lower points value?

Dr. Summerskill: My hon. Friend could not have been here when my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer explained quite clearly to the House that canned salmon costs dollars. What my hon. Friend calls my "little game" is my attempt to persuade the people of this country to cat food from soft currency countries rather than from hard currency countries.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEGITIMACY DECLARATIONS (PETITIONS)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Attorney-General whether he will take steps to enable petitions for declaration of legitimacy to be heard in camera.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Whiteley): I have been asked to reply. Legislation would be required to give effect to the hon. and gallant Member's proposal. Whether the proposal is desirable is a matter of opinion, but I will consider the matter.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will my right hon. Friend draw the attention of the Attorney-General to the remarks made by the judge in a recent case at Brenford County Court where an old lady of 73 had to give evidence about events of over 50 years ago, and whether it is not possible in those circumstances to allow the same privacy in legitimacy proceedings as is done in adoption proceedings?

Mr. Whiteley: Yes, Sir; that is one of the matters which the Attorney-General has in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Linseed Production

Mr. G. Williams: asked the Minister of Agriculture what evidence he has received of the difficulties in harvesting linseed this year; and whether he considers that the present price is giving sufficient encouragement to farmers to grow this crop.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown): There is no doubt that linseed is not an easy crop to harvest. This year's experience appears to have varied somewhat widely: but the season was exceptional, favouring strong weed growths, and harvesting in general was difficult and prolonged. It is, I think, perhaps rather soon to conclude that the present price is not sufficiently encouraging to growers in less unfavourable circumstances.

Mr. Williams: Are the Government taking any steps to find out whether there is better machinery in the Argentine, the United States and other countries to make the harvesting of this crop an easier proposition?

Mr. Brown: I will not tie myself to any of the examples given by the hon. Member, but we are certainly taking a wide view of what should be done to help producers of this and other crops on which we are really depending.

Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: Will the Minister bear in mind that if he wants to achieve the target of linseed next season, he should bring this matter up at the next February price review?

Land Commission

Lieutenant-Colonel Corbett: asked the Minister of Agriculture what acreage of land is now administered by the Land Commission; what acreage of land they have taken over and re-let or re-sold; and how many people are there in their employment.

Mr. G. Brown: The Agricultural Land Commission and Welsh Agricultural Land Sub-Commission have 52,059 acres of agricultural land under their control and the whole of the area is let. They employ a total staff of 35 on their management and other functions, including three land agents, an estate staff of

18 and the necessary office staff. Day-to-day management work in the field is carried out by members of the Ministry's Agricultural Land Service.

Seed Oats (Sale)

Lieutenant-Colonel Corbett: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will restore to farmers the right to receive coupons in exchange for oats they sell for seed.

Mr. G. Brown: A farmer who as a result of selling his oats for seed is short of feedingstuffs for his livestock is allowed coupons, according to his need, up to the limit of the quantity of seed oats he has sold.

Lieut.-Colonel Corbett: Do the coupons allow the purchaser freedom to buy what feedingstuffs he likes, or is he now more limited than he was in former years as to the feedingstuffs with which he can replace his oats?

Mr. Brown: They cover the whole quantity that he is allowed, but they are valid only for home-produced feeding-stuffs.

Foxes (Preservation)

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will inquire into the extent to which foxes are preserved for purposes of hunting; the acreage devoted to artificial coverts for the harbouring of pests; and the practice of constructing artificial earths.

Mr. G. Brown: No, Sir. I have no reason to believe that foxes are preserved to any appreciable extent. Moreover, an inquiry of such a wide range and uncertain character would involve considerable expenditure of time and the results would almost certainly be inconclusive. Without strong evidence to the contrary, I am not satisfied that there is sufficient justification for diverting the pests staffs of C.A.E.Cs. from their normal duties for such a purpose.

Mr. Greenwood: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Masters of Foxhounds Association and other foxhunting interests admit that foxes are preserved for purposes of sport? Is he further aware that leading poultry experts have alleged in poultry newspapers that British


housewives are being robbed of millions of eggs because of this practice? Will the Government therefore take a courageous stand to deal with this fox-hunting fifth column on the food front?

Mr. Brown: There may be a good deal to be said for taking a courageous stand, but one has to be careful where one takes the courageous stand. I am not at all aware of the second allegation which my hon. Friend has made, but I would remind him that county executive committees have power under Section 98 of the 1947 Agriculture Act to require the destruction of foxes and there is no evidence that they are not in fact using that power.

Mr. Paget: Is the Minister aware that foxes kill a very great number of rats and rabbits which do far more than equivalent harm?

Mr. Greenwood: Is my hon. Friend aware also that, whatever happens in Northampton, large numbers of poultry have recently been destroyed in my constituency by foxes? Will the Minister therefore try to purge the agricultural executive committees of foxhunting interests?

Pig and Poultry Feedingstuffs

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will make a statement regarding the issue of bonus rations for pigs and poultry.

Mr. G. Brown: Full particulars of the bonus rationing scheme were announced to the Press on 16th November and I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the announcement. I will also, with permission, include a summary statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hurd: What proportionate increase does this amount to for commercial producers of pigs and poultry? When does the Minister think he will be able to remove any remaining restraints on the production of eggs and pig meat?

Mr. Brown: I am not quite sure that I know what my hon. Friend means by "any remaining restraints on the production of eggs and pig meat." If he is asking when we shall be able to make further issues of feedingstuffs, the answer is "When we get them." With regard to

the first part of his supplementary question, the answer is "About 10 per cent."

Brigadier Medlicott: While welcoming this bonus, may I ask the Minister whether he will give active consideration to the possibility of a new scheme in which the keeping of pigs and poultry before the war will not be the only criterion?

Mr. Brown: The hon. and gallant Member will be aware that we have reopened again until the end of this month the scheme under which newcomers in this field who have not the 1939–40 basic qualification can, under certain conditions, get feedingstuffs. I hope that any constituent of the hon. and gallant Member who desires to do so will make application before 1st December.

Sir T. Dugdale: Will the Minister try to make his statements to the House in the first instance, because owing to the present shortage of newsprint, it may be difficult for farmers to be quite sure about these matters?

Mr. Brown: I will think about that matter. I made the announcement at Welshpool on Saturday. I thought the interest in the announcement was so wide that it might well be made known in the country. We had already forecast its coming and the matter was widely canvassed in the Press. I am not aware that we made any breach of custom, but I will certainly think about the matter.

Following is the statement:

Issues of bonus rations for pigs and poultry will be made in January, 1949, and subsequently at intervals of four months. The January issues will be based upon deliveries of pig meat during the three calendar months ending 31st December, 1948, and of deliveries of eggs during the 13 weeks ending 29th December, 1948. Allowances will be at the rate of 1 cwt. per 160 lb. of pigmeat or 80 dozen grade-able eggs. For the two subsequent periods the allowance for eggs delivered will be at the rate of 1 cwt. per 160 dozen but the issues in respect of pigmeat will not be varied. The coupons issued will be special coupons valid for either a pig or poultry compound or for straight cereal feeding-stuffs and they will be so dated that purchases are spread over a period of four months beginning with the date of issue.

Producers will be required to make application for the bonus rations and to support their application by vouchers showing what their deliveries of eggs and pigmeat have been during the appropriate period. It has been possible to make arrangements with the egg packing stations under which the stations will furnish producers with a composite voucher showing the total deliveries of gradeable eggs during the period. Pigkeepers must attach the payment certificates they receive in respect of deliveries of pig meat.

The operation of the scheme will be reviewed at the end of the first year and may then be amended as experience dictates.

Milk and Dairies (1944 Act)

Colonel Clarke: asked the Minister of Agriculture when he intends to bring the Food and Drugs (Milk and Dairies) Act, 1944, into operation.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. John Edwards): I have been asked to reply. Delay has been caused by certain legal difficulties which have come to light, but the order to bring the Act into operation will be made as soon as possible. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of a recent circular addressed to local authorities.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Speed Limits (Utility Cars)

Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Minister of Transport if, in view of the recent decision with reference to red or white petrol for utility cars, he will state whether these will now be classified as private vehicles for speed limit purposes, more especially where no C licence is held and they are licensed as private cars, and in view of the fact that Purchase Tax is payable on them as private vehicles, whereas commercial vehicles avoid this tax.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): No, Sir. The considerations mentioned are not relevant to the speed limit.

Sir J. Lucas: Why should private cars, because they have a body suitable for luggage or shopping, be penalised as

against saloon cars which may contain hangers for clothes and be used for commercial purposes? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many authorities refuse to enforce this archaic law?

Mr. Barnes: It is difficult to determine the class of vehicle here according to the use to which it is put at any particular time.

Sir J. Lucas: Surely this relates only to licences for private use? It is not a commercial matter.

Mr. Paget: Since none of these utility vehicles observes the speed limit anyhow, why not abolish this archaic regulation?

Mr. Barnes: That is an entirely different point.

Sir J. Lucas: I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Street Lighting, Hound

Mr. George Jeger: asked the Minister of Transport why he is delaying his consent to the street lighting application of the Hound Parish Council.

Mr. Barnes: I regret that there has been some delay in this case. I am arranging for the immediate issue of the necessary licence.

Oral Answers to Questions — JAMAICA

Illegitimate Births

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies approximately what percentage of all babies born in Jamaica are illegitimate.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Rees-Williams): Of the total births registered in Jamaica in 1946, 67.71 per cent. were illegitimate.

Hospital Accommodation

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many public hospital beds are available free in Jamaica; and to what extent this accommodation falls short of the estimated need.

Mr. Rees-Williams: There are at present 5,576 free beds available to meet the estimated need of 7,850.

Mr. Driberg: Could my hon. Friend urge the Government of Jamaica to try to divert to hospital building and socially useful purposes some of the vast sums of money otherwise spent in building luxury hotels?

Mr. Rees-Williams: My hon. Friend has another question on that point.

HOUSING (RURAL WORKERS)

Mr. Baldwin: asked the Minister of Health whether in view of the shortage of houses for agricultural workers, he is prepared to waive the present restrictions on the granting of licences to persons wishing to build houses for agricultural workers and who are prepared to make no claim for subsidy.

Mr. John Edwards: No, Sir. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) on 11th November, of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. Baldwin: Will the Minister say what reason there is for refusing a licence for the building of a house for a farm worker when there is such a shortage of rural houses and when the builder of the cottage wants no subsidy from the country and no subsidy from the ratepayers?

Mr. Edwards: There is no advantage in adding to the number of houses on paper unless the men and the materials can be made available.

Mr. Baldwin: They are there.

Mr. Edwards: I am satisfied that this is much the best way in the interests of the agricultural community.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Furniture Controls (Relaxation)

Mr. John E. Haire: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now in a position to announce a relaxation of controls affecting the furniture industry.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): Yes, Sir. I propose to revoke the present statutory control over the manufacture and supply of furniture, and at the same time to make

certain modifications in the utility furniture scheme. The necessary order has been made and will come into operation on 29th November.
Under the new scheme, manufacturers will still need a licence to apply the utility mark to furniture, and will be permitted to apply the mark only to furniture made in conformity with general specifications of quality and construction issued by the Board of Trade. These specifications are intended to maintain the standard of quality of utility furniture, but will give manufacturers freedom to make it to their own designs, and by the methods which they can most efficiently employ.
These changes do not affect the controls over acquisition and consumption of timber or steel for furniture.
Maximum prices for the various groups of new utility furniture will be fixed in a separate order which will be made shortly. Each group of articles will have its own maximum price but the highest prices will not, except in a few cases, exceed the highest now chargeable. In many instances they will be slightly lower.
As part of the new scheme, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make a Treasury order reducing the rate of Purchase Tax on non-utility furniture now charged at 66⅔ per cent. to 33⅓ per cent. as from 29th November.

Mr. Haire: While I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, which will give very great satisfaction, particularly to the manufacturers of non-utility furniture, may I ask him to assure us that he will retain sufficient controls to guarantee that the interests of the consumers will be uppermost at all times?

Mr. Wilson: We have had that matter very much in mind and I can assure my hon. Friend that, while giving freedom of design, we shall maintain the standard of quality and reliability of utility furniture.

Major Guy Lloyd: In view of the innumerable occasions on which hon. Members on this side of the House have advocated the relaxation of controls, does the right hon. Gentleman realise how grateful we are that for once he has taken our advice?

Mr. Wilson: In view of the large number of times on which we have announced relaxations of controls when they have been possible, I would like to remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that we are still awaiting the long-promised advice from the other side on which controls to take off next.

Mr. Thurtle: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that he has a sufficient number of inspectors to ensure that the specifications are properly carried out?

Mr. Wilson: I think the main control on this must come from the consumers themselves. We are providing in the new scheme a code number which will be applied to the furniture so that the maker can be identified, and I hope the consumers will give us all the help they can.

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: Can my right hon. Friend say whether his Department are encouraging furniture manufacturers to use some of the lesser known Empire timbers which are in plentiful supply as distinct from the more popularly known, such as oak and mahogany?

Mr. Wilson: That is being done, and many new kinds of timber are now being used.

Machine Tools (Export)

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will amend the Export of Goods (Control) (Amendment No. 3) Order, 1948, so as to preclude the export of all machine tools that can be used for armament purposes.

Mr. H. Wilson: Machine tools designed for use for armament purposes are already included in the order. I do not propose to amend the order to include machine tools generally.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: When the President of the Board of Trade says that machine tools for armament purposes generally are included within the order, can he say in what part of that order any tools except those required for small arms manufacture appear?

Mr. Wilson: I am sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will realise the difficulty here. In fact, practically every machine tool can be used in one way or another for armament manufacture. I

am satisfied that to put them all under control would involve a very serious interference with our export drive. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman has any particular kind of machine tool in mind which he thinks should be brought under control, I hope he will let us know about it.

Undischarged Bankrupts

Mr. Lipson: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the present number of undischarged bankrupts; what check is kept on their financial activities; and whether he will consider taking action to strengthen the existing law on the matter.

Mr. H. Wilson: It is estimated that there are 60,000 undischarged bankrupts. In general, no check is maintained, but if the Official Receiver obtains information suggesting that an undischarged bankrupt is committing bankruptcy offences or possesses after-acquired property, he takes whatever action is appropriate. The answer to the third part of the Question is in the negative.

Mr. Lipson: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether some more stringent check ought to be kept on the activities of some of these gentlemen, in view of their mode of life and their financial dealings?

Mr. Wilson: Without a very large additional staff equipped with special police powers, it would be impossible to keep track of some 60,000 undischarged bankrupts.

Major Haughton: Would the President of the Board of Trade agree that it would be possible, without a great addition to the staff of inspectors, to insist that an undischarged bankrupt should report periodically?

Mr. Wilson: I would like to look into that. I would not agree without considering it.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: Would it not be a practicable method of making such persons reveal their position if the identity card of every undischarged bankrupt was marked "undischarged bankrupt" so that its production could be demanded by anyone who was interested?

Mr. Wilson: I do not think that would be a desirable recommendation.

Mr. Drayson: Is it not desirable that undischarged bankrupts should not frequently change their names, which leads to confusion?

Brigadier Medlicott: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the register of undischarged bankrupts is available for inspection at a fee and could not greater use be made of it? No doubt it is worth looking at, but the register seems a little old-fashioned.

"QUEEN ELIZABETH" (STRIKE)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: (by Private Notice)asked the Minister of Labour what steps he is taking to secure a resumption of work by the crew of the Cunard White Star liner "Queen Elizabeth," and whether he can give some confirmation of recent indications of a settlement?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): An officer of my Department has been in Southampton in touch with the shipping company and the trade union. I am happy to be able to inform the House that work was resumed at 12 noon today.

Sir W. Smithers: May I ask the Minister of Labour whether there was any breach of contract between the men who left the ship and the Company? If so, is it proposed to take any disciplinary action for anarchy and mutiny? May I also ask whether the Minister realises that the strike at Southampton is only the last move in the Soviet game? Will the Government govern or get out?

Mr. Pritt: Will the Minister consider the danger that would be involved to many respectable business men if people who break contracts are prosecuted for anarchy and mutiny?

Mr. Granville: Does the statement mean that the "Queen Elizabeth" will be able to sail in the near future?

Mr. Isaacs: I have not been able to collect the most up-to-date information, but I understand that the Shipping Federation and the trade union met last night; that they reached some understanding which was submitted to the men this morning and that they at once resumed

work. As far as I know, it is intended that the "Queen Elizabeth" will sail tomorrow, pending such information as may come from New York.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Will the Minister confirm that the settlement of this strike does not now depend on the settlement of the strike in New York, because that was understood from the statement from New York?

Mr. Isaacs: I have already indicated, in answer to the Private Notice Question, that I can only give the information I have at the moment. I have only just received confirmation that there was a meeting and that they have decided to resume work, but information of the arrangements come to has not yet come through.

Sir W. Smithers: May I have a reply to my question? I asked whether there was any breach of contract——

Mr. Speaker: I think we heard the question; it need not be repeated. If the Minister does not choose to answer, that is his affair.

Sir W. Smithers: May I ask whether there was any breach of contract? [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman dare not answer that one; the T.U.C. would not like it.

BILL PRESENTED

LEGAL AID AND SOLICITORS (SCOTLAND) BILL

"to make legal aid and advice in Scotland more readily available for persons of small or moderate means and to enable the cost of legal aid or advice for such persons to be defrayed wholly or partly out of moneys provided by Parliament; to establish a Law Society of Scotland; to amend the law relating to solicitors in Scotland; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Mr. Woodburn; supported by the Lord Advocate, Mr. Glenvil Hall, the Solicitor-General for Scotland, Mr. Thomas Fraser and Mr. J. J. Robertson; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 24]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from

the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

The House divided: Ayes, 172; Noes, 85.

Division No. 10.]
AYES
3.33 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Pritt, D. N.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Hale, Leslie
Proctor, W. T.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Pursey, Comdr. H.


Albu, A. H.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Ranger, J.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Rees-Williams, D. R.


Alpass, J. H.
Hewitson, Capt M
Reeves, J.


Attewell, H. C
Hobson, C. R.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Ayles, W. H.
Horabin, T. L.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Hoy, J.
Robens, A.


Bacon, Miss A
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Balfour, A.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Barton, C.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Battley, J. R.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Royle, C


Bechervaise, A. E.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Sargood, R.


Berry, H.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Scott-Elliott. W.


Beswick, F.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Segal, Dr. S.


Binns, J.
Janner, B.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Blackburn, A. R.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Sharp, Granville


Blyton, W. R.
Jenkins, R. H.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Jones, D. T (Hartlepool)
Skinnard, F. W.


Bramall, E. A.
Keenan, W.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Brown, George (Belper)
Key, Rt Hon. C. W.
Solley, L. J.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Stross, Dr. B.


Burden, T. W.
Kinley, J.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Byers, Frank
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Sylvester, G. O.


Callaghan, James
Levy, B. W.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Lipson D. L.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Chamberlain, R. A.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Chater, D.
McAdam, W.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Chetwynd, G. R.
McEntee, V. La T.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Cluse, W. S.
Mack, J. D.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Cocks, F. S.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Thurtle, Ernest


Colman, Miss G. M.
McLeavy, F.
Tolley, L.


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
MacPherson, M. (Stirling)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Cove, W. G.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Vernon, Maj W. F.


Daggar, G.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Viant, S. P.


Daines, P.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Walker, G. H.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Mellish, R. J.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Deer, G.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Warbey, W. N.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Monslow, W.
Weitzman, D.


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Dumpleton, C. W.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Wheartey, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Moyle, A.
While, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Naylor, T. E.
Whitetey, Rt. Hon. W.


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Oliver, G. H.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Fernyhough, E.
Paget, R. T.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Follick, M.
Parker, J.
Willis, E.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Parkin, B. T.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.


Gibson, C. W.
Paton Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Wise, Major F. J.


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Granville, E. (Eye)
Pearson, A.
Wyatt, W.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Peart, T. F.
Yates, V. F.


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Piratin, P.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Grey, C. F.
Popplewell, E.



Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Porter, E. (Warrington)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Simmons and Mr. Wilkins.




NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Channon, H.
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)


Baird, J.
Clarke, Col. R. S
Duthie, W. S.


Baldwin, A. E.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Eden, Rt. Hon A.


Birch, Nigel
Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)


Bossom, A. C.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Grimston, R. V.


Bower, N.
Crowder, Capt. John E.
Harden, J. R. E.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Cuthbert, W. N.
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
De la Bère, R.
Haughton, S. G.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Head, Brig, A. H.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Bullock, Capt. M.
Drayson, G. B.
Hogg, Hon Q.


Butcher, H. W.
Drewe, C.
Hollis, M. C.




Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Hope, Lord J.
Marples, A. E.
Smithers, Sir W.


Hurd, A.
Marsden, Capt. A.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Keeling, E. H.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Sutcliffe, H.


Lambert, Hon. G.
Medlicott, Brigadier F.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Langford-Holt, J.
Mellor, Sir J.
Taylor, Vice-Adm, E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Lennox-Boyd., A. T.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Touche, G. C.


Low, A. R. W.
Nutting, Anthony
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Lucas, Major Sir J.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Pickthorn, K.
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Renton, D.



Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Sanderson, Sir F.
Mr. Studholme and


Manningham-Buller, R E
Savory, Prof. D. L
Colonel Wheatley


Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS (18th November)

PRIZE MONEY

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision as to the payment, and the distribution or application, of any prize money granted by His Majesty out of the proceeds of prize captured in the late war, or other provision as to prize, it is expedient to authorise the payment into the Exchequer of unclaimed sums in the custody of prize courts.

PRIZE BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

CLAUSE 1.—(Aggregate amounts of Naval and Marine, and R.A.F., prize payments.)

3.42 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, to leave out "four," and to insert "six."
I think it would be convenient to the Committee if we considered at the same time the Amendment to page 2, line 3, leave out from "million," to "thousand," in line 4, and insert "eight hundred and seventy-five."
In the Second Reading Debate considerable concern was expressed about the small amount—£5¼ million—available for distribution after the last war. Indeed, that small amount was used by the Parliamentary Secretary as an argument for treating the able seaman and the boy on the same basis when Prize Money came to be distributed, and as an argument for the exclusion from the Prize Money distribution of those who were injured and killed in the course of their service before the completion of 180 days at sea, of commodores of convoys and naval ratings serving in the course of their duty on armed merchant ships, and of members of the maritime merchantmen, Royal Artillery.
In the interval that has elapsed since the Second Reading, we on our side have been considering in what way the sum available for distribution could be properly increased. That is what we are seeking to do in these two Amendments.

The Committee will observe from the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill that a purely arbitrary basis has been taken for the division between Droits of the Crown and Droits of the Admiralty. It may well be that, in fact, soma, part of the Droits of the Admiralty, under the Bill as it now stands, are already finding their way into the Royal Naval and the Royal Air Force Prize Funds. The arbitrary basis is of two to one, as the hon. Gentleman said in moving the Second Reading:
This Bill, however, differs from past Bills, in that there will be an arbitrary division—purely arbitrary, I may emphasise—of one-third Admiralty, that is Exchequer grant, and two-thirds Crown, that is for distribution. This amount is roughly the same as the proportions in the 1914–18 war. Both the Air Ministry and the Admiralty are satisfied that this division is a fair one and that the Treasury have, in fact, been most reasonable in the matter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1948; Vol. 457, c. 1862.]
The amount may be roughly the same as the proportions in the 1914–18 war, but the total available for distribution is very much less. Having regard to the small amount available for distribution, and the fact that that is used as an argument for excluding categories which are, in my opinion, clearly entitled to share in the distribution, I submit that Parliament should say that the total of £6 million should be made available for distribution as Prize Money. It lies upon the Government to satisfy us that, in all the circumstances, it is right for the Exchequer to take one-third of the small total that is available. I think I am right in saying that the total amount now in the Prize Fund is less than half what it was after the 1914–18 war.
Why should not the whole of this sum be made available? If it is made available, it seems possible by a slight alteration in the scale of distribution to give the able seaman, for instance, a bigger share of Prize Money than the boy. It should also be possible by a very small increase to make provision for the excluded categories to whom I have already referred. If the hon. Gentleman resists this Amendment, he really must put forward some reason, not only for this arbitrary division but also for not including in the fund available for distribution the total of £6 million now in the Supreme Court Prize Deposit Account. I hope that in this short speech I have made clear the purpose of the first Amendment.
The second Amendment is designed to alter, by increasing it, the amount available for the Royal Air Force Prize Fund, preserving by that alteration the same proportion between the amounts going to the Navy and to the Air Force as provided in the Bill. I hope this is clear to the hon. Gentleman. The effect of increasing the fund available for distribution will mean not only more for both, but will mean that naval ratings who were ordered to serve on armed merchant ships will not be excluded from sharing in the distribution; and that the service of a naval rating on an armed merchant ship, followed, perhaps, by service on a warship, will count towards the period of 180 days.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment and I shall give a number of reasons. The hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) said he had been considering in what way the sum available for distribution could properly be increased. The fact is that it cannot properly be increased. Any increase under the method which he suggests would be improper. First, there is the question of precedent which, I know, carries a great deal of weight with hon. Members opposite. Throughout the centuries during which prize money has been granted, and particularly in recent times, Droits of Admiralty were considered as something which should go not to individual captors—or sailors—in the Navy, but, in fact, as I explained in my Second Reading speech, to the Exchequer. I will not go into all the history now because I have done so at some length before. The whole principle was that the Droits of Admiralty went to the Exchequer, and Droits of the Crown to the men. Therefore, on the ground of precedent we should be against accepting this Amendment. I agree that that is not enough.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: If the hon. Gentleman is relying on precedent, can he assure this Committee that under the division now contained in the Bill, no Droits of Admiralty are going into this £5¼ million? Unless he can give this assurance it would follow that under this arbitrary division the Bill itself departs from precedent.

Mr. Dugdale: Of course, the Bill departs from precedent, in a sense, because we are making, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, an arbitrary division. But having made that division, the principle of the division is that certain sums shall be Droits of Admiralty and certain sums shall be Droits of the Crown. That is in accordance with precedent, and Droits of Admiralty are payable into the Exchequer.
I turn next to the agreement. The hon. and learned Member is perturbed; he thinks that perhaps not enough is being given by way of Droits of the Crown. He will be interested to know that we consider that by this agreement we have done better than we would have done had the division taken place as it did after the previous war; if, in fact, all the sums had been calculated as they were in the previous war, instead of fixing an arbitrary division as we have now done. For example, many ships were captured in North African ports, Massawa and elsewhere, which will be counted as Droits of the Crown and not as Droits of Admiralty. We think that by and large we are getting more in this way than we got in the division that took place after the last war, more by way of proportion.
Thirdly—and this is very important—these arrangements have been reached with the concurrence of the Dominions. If we were to alter the proportion, as the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests—and, indeed, I gather that he would remove all the Droits of Admiralty and make them into Droits of the Crown—we should have to agree with the Dominions to an entirely new basis of disposal. For all these reasons it would be impossible to accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment. It would make the Bill in its present form unworkable.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I understand the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty now to have admitted that there is in this Bill no clear distinction between Droits of the Crown and Droits of Admiralty, and to have answered my hon. and learned Friend's question by saying in effect that we are now getting away, so far as the Prize Fund is concerned, with part of the Droits of Admiralty—that they are already included in the sums which are


mentioned in this Bill. If that be so, it seems to me that the first argument of the Parliamentary Secretary falls completely to the ground. If it be admitted that Droits of Admiralty can be included in the Royal Naval Prize Fund and in the Royal Air Force Prize Fund, then it is up to this House to say what sums should be included, and it should not depend upon some bargain which the Parliamentary Secretary has made outside this House.
It is wrong for any Minister of the Crown to come here and say that he has made a good bargain and to make no attempt to explain how that bargain has been arrived at, or why these sums have been fixed, and simply to rely on that simple statement to convince the House that he has done well. I suggest that the Committee should look at the consolidated Prize Fund Deposit Account. To my mind, it requires a good deal of explanation. I spent some time today trying to fathom its mysteries, but I am not much wiser than when I started. That may be due to some congenital defect on my part, or it may be due to the accounts, whichever way hon. Members care to look at the matter. I would ask hon. Members whether they have looked at the heading, "Seizures under Orders in Council"? If so they will see that a net loss has accrued of £5. That is not very large, but I fail to see why that loss should accrue to the Navy when the Navy is carrying out orders based upon Orders in Council.
If hon. Members will look at the next sub-heading, "Released to the Crown and later Released to Owners," they will see that the expenses of detention recovered amounted to £13,000, yet the expenses are shown as £28,000, again showing a net loss to the fund of £15,000. The whole of that section, showing what has happened where certain prizes have been released to the Crown, shows a net loss to the Supreme Court Fund of £5,000. I want to know how that has happened. If we are to argue about the sums available, the least the Parliamentary Secretary can do is to give us some explanation of the accounts. On the next page he will see that whereas receipts not yet allocated amount to £5 million, payments not yet allocated amount to £7 million, which would seem to imply

that there is a further loss of £2 million to be borne on this account. Even if that last item alone could be adjusted in any normal business fashion, it would more than cover the sums of money we want to expropriate and add to the two Prize Funds which are under discussion.
During the Second Reading Debate I asked the Government why this account was so low. We have so far received no explanation. I should like again to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us why this account balances at the small sum of £10 million. I asked him a specific question about the whaling ship. That one ship alone must, in the Prize Courts, have had a value so far as this country is concerned, of at least £1 million. Since then another case has come to my mind. There was a ship captured off South Africa in the early days of the war which was worth £3 million. There, in the value of two ships alone, is £4 million.
When the hon. Gentleman says that he has taken in account a certain amount of shipping which was captured in one part of the globe or another, I do not believe that he can be faithfully informing this Committee. I asked about Taranto. There must be £300,000 or £400,000 of shipping concerned there. Again, in the North German ports, enormous quantities were captured. I believe that a great deal of shipping was captured, particularly in the Middle East, which the Government have seen fit to release to their previous owners. This shipping was captured, and considered as captured, in an act of war.
The Government may have thought it necessary, for political reasons, to return some ships to their previous owners. If that is so I can understand why this account is so low, though it seems to me wrong that the account should be low because a political decision has been taken by the Government in fulfilment of some political policy which they happen to be following, at the expense of the Navy and the Air Force. If that is so, and I feel it is, the least we in this Committee can do is to make up any sum which the Government have felt it necessary to spend in fulfilment of their policy by funds from the Droits of Admiralty. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Daventry has placed the requirement very low. He has only suggested a minor addition, and one which will enable us


to some very small extent to extend the range over which Prize Money will be payable, and at the same time to give to the various ranks in juster proportion what this country owes them.
There is one last argument, to which the Parliamentary Secretary did not refer. It has always been said, and I think quite rightly, that prize bounty and prize money are considered part of the pay of the Navy. It is an argument many times adduced that the rates of pay in the Navy are contained because there are bonuses, if one might use the word, of this sort on occasions. I think it very wrong if we are, in fact, to adopt this minor scale and take away from the Navy these bonuses which have been theirs, that the Government at the same time will not bring forward something to increase their rates of pay. For all these reasons I hope that the Government will think again and allow the sums mentioned in Clause 1 to be increased by the amounts mentioned in the Amendment.

4.0 p.m.

Sir Ronald Ross: In supporting this Amendment we are endeavouring to assist the Parliamentary Secretary. He has said from time to time that he is embarrassed by the small amount of this fund. It is much smaller than the fund in the previous war. This Amendment is designed to improve the amount available for distribution. I do not propose to go into the various inequalities and injustices produced by this Bill amongst those who are entitled to receive payments out of the Fund. I am dealing only with the Amendment. It is admitted by the Government that certain Droits of Admiralty have been included in the Prize Fund, but not all and very far from all, as I should suppose. In that respect, I think that the Government, in bringing forward this Bill, have not kept pace with modern conditions. They do not seem to realise the change of conditions in the last war compared with previous wars to which prize money applied.
I do not think that sailors should be prejudiced because of the fact, for example, that this war was premeditated and therefore the ships of hostile Powers were kept in port. Nor do I think they should be prejudiced by the fact of there being wireless telegraphy which enabled ships to be warned to go to port, or not to

put to sea. We all know that it was through the efforts of the Navy that the seas were cleared of enemy merchant ships. The Navy did not clear them, as in past wars, by capturing them but, because of altered conditions, by very largely keeping them in port, or by sinking them. Therefore, although the efforts of the sailors were just as severe and dangerous—possibly more dangerous, because I do not know whether there has ever been a war when so many British sailors lost their lives—they are prejudiced, because the Government have not kept pace with modern conditions in providing for this Bill.
For example, the ships carrying supplies to Rommel's army in Libya had all to be sunk. They could not be captured. That was a series of exploits far more dangerous than if it had been possible to capture the ships. Ships that did not put to sea could not be captured. Hitler had intended to make this war and therefore ships were kept in port. Eventually those ships were captured but the reason why they were captured in port and not at sea was because they had been told to stay in port, and therefore had not put to sea. I want to know from the Parliamentary Secretary what was the value of all the German shipping captured in German ports and becoming Droits of Admiralty and why they should not be added to the present Prize Fund, which even he considers to be most inadequate.
The Bill does not take into account modern conditions, and I think that is a great injustice. As for the arguments about the agreement with the Dominions, it is better that right should be done, even if it involves postponement. I cannot suppose for a moment that the Dominions will object to such a variation of the terms and prize money. It seems very unjust that the old practice of prize money should be so affected by modern conditions and that the Government in drafting their Bill should have no consideration of how seamen have been prejudiced by modern inventions and by the deliberate intention of the hostile Powers to declare war, having warned their shipping some time before.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: The Parliamentary Secretary has already stated that the principle for the


allocation of prize money has been departed from in this Bill in relation to what it was in 1914–18. He has also stated that part of the Droits of Admiralty have been put into the Prize Fund. Also it was a separate decision as to the division between Droits of the Crown and Droits of Admiralty as between two and one and the Government have departed from the principle that has been carried out before. Already part of the Droits of Admiralty have been included in the Prize Fund and it seems to me that a further sum from the Droits of Admiralty might be added to the Prize Fund for this reason.
During the Second Reading Debate it was made quite clear on behalf of the Government that the allocation in shares between the highest and lowest was brought about owing to the small amount of money available in the Prize Fund. Of course, it is also affected by there being no prize bounty in the scheme. But the principle should be applied to the allocation of prize money available, whether the amount be large or small. There will be no difference of opinion with regard to the necessity of raising the sum of money available in the Prize Fund, if that is possible, in order that those who partake in the division of this Prize Fund shall receive more and in better proportion to their rank and responsibility than is laid down in this Bill. That will be discussed on other Amendments, but I consider that the Government are putting up a very weak case for not paying more money from the Droits of Admiralty into the Fund. That would make it a much better Bill and a much better division of what is available. Therefore, I heartily support the Amendment.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: So far as I could observe during the Second Reading Debate, the main argument of the Government for cutting out certain classes was based on the amount of money that was available. The way in which I would express my view is to prove that certain classes must indeed be included in this Bill. Because of that, a method, and a proper method, must be found to raise the actual sum that is given in this Amendment. During the Second Reading Debate the Parliamentary Secretary said:

Many men throughout the country have been expecting to get this money. They have been expecting it for some years. They have been rightly expecting to get it. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1948; Vol. 457, c. 1868.]
I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to think for a moment and to ask himself two questions. The first is, had he been afloat during the early part of the war for a very short period of time and had his vessel been sunk and he personally lost his life, under those circumstances would not any man think that he would be included for prize money under this Bill?

The Chairman: I do not understand how the hon. Gentleman brings his remarks within this Amendment which merely refers to an increase of the disposable amount.

Mr. Marshall: I made my case at the beginning by saying that if the argument of His Majesty's Government is that certain classes have to be excluded from this Bill, and if the basis of that argument is the sum of money available, then a method must be found to raise that sum of money. It is in support of that method, and in support of this Amendment which raises that money, that I argue the case for the inclusion of the other two classes.

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman may be entitled to address his remarks to an increase of the sum, but he is not entitled to discuss the details of the distribution which he thinks should be made. That is the distinction.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Surely, in putting forward arguments for raising the amount in the Prize Fund one is entitled to draw attention to the categories which are now omitted. The whole of the argument has been that the sum should be increased to make provision for these categories. Therefore, is not one entitled to point out what sums are now excluded and how indefensible it is to resist their inclusion?

The Chairman: In general terms hon. Members may refer to categories but certainly not to individual ranks and so forth.

Mr. Marshall: May I seek your guidance, Major Milner, before continuing


my argument, because I am not clear what the position is? If it is a matter of not going into detail over these two cases, could you suggest at what time during our consideration of this Bill, you feel that it would be better argued, so that no argument could come from the Government that it was no good pressing the case because there was not a sufficient sum of money available?

The Chairman: As far as I am aware, there is no occasion on the Committee stage of this Bill for discussing the detailed distribution of the amount available. That is a matter which it is intended should be dealt with by His Majesty's Proclamation. I am afraid that there will be no opportunity of discussing these details.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I suggest that it would be in Order under Clause 2 to discuss this question. I do not want to put the whole argument in front of you at this moment, Sir, but in the Debate on the 1918 Bill there was a discussion on the scale of distribution on an Amendment similar in form to the one we are now discussing.

The Chairman: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is in error there. There was reference to it, but certainly there was no discussion in detail. However, we will deal with Clause 2 when we come to it.

Mr. Marshall: I am bound by your Ruling, Major Milner, and I trust that I shall keep within Order although I still think that there is a certain degree of obscurity over this matter. The point to which I was referring—and I shall try to keep away from detail—was one that I had already mentioned, coupled with this other fact that, if we managed to raise the total overall sum, no doubt the Parliamentary Secretary would agree that the definition of who should receive the extra money would perhaps become larger. I imagine that at least that statement does not go into intricate details. If by this Amendment the sum is made larger, then the question would arise, who would be counted afloat and who would not. This Committee would be the first to pay due regard and recognition to the danger experienced and the gallantry shown by those who served at sea

in the merchant ships, manning the guns in the D.E.M.S., especially during the period of the "phoney" war as it was called by some. Owing to your Ruling, Sir, I will not attempt to proceed any further except to say that I support this Amendment in order to make money available to those who have, I believe, every right to it.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Benn Levy: As the Debate has proceeded, one thing has become clear. That is that every figure suggested on either side of the Committee is in fact an arbitrary figure. It is worth reminding the Committee that the Parliamentary Secretary in proposing his own figure admitted very frankly, and indeed emphasised the point, that he chose £4 million and that it was an arbitrary figure. It did, as has been pointed out, impinge upon some of the traditional Droits of Admiralty. It is competent, therefore, for the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) to argue, as he did, that it should have included all Droits of Admiralty and that the figure, therefore, should be increased to £6 million. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) took the matter still further and was just as logical when he said that this should not be the limit, but that there should be a further expansion and that the negative proceeds, as it were, of shipping kept in port should also have been taken into calculation and should have increased the sum.

Sir R. Ross: I referred to shipping which had been kept in German ports and subsequently captured by the Allies. I said that that should be included.

Mr. Levy: In other words, the hon. Gentleman suggested another figure and a wider scope. That was equally arbitrary. Clearly a decision cannot be arrived at on purely logical grounds. We simply have to choose a figure. No hon. Gentleman opposite has been able to show so far that the figure he has chosen is the right one and that the figure in the Bill is the wrong one. I suggest that dissent arises from a fundamental misconception of the purpose of this prize money. It is not in fact pay or a form of pay. Partly it is the fulfilment of a technical expectation, but still more it is a gesture—a very proper gesture—of sentiment.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: I find myself in agreement with much of what has been said by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy) in that the two sides of the Committee are discussing two figures which he described as arbitrary. Be that as it may, we on this side of the Committee urge acceptance of the larger figure. We are endeavouring to do so in order to make the way open for certain improvements which we think are necessary. The Civil Lord, when winding up the Second Reading Debate, made it clear that one of his difficulties was that the sum available for distribution is much smaller on this occasion than it was at the conclusion of hostilities in 1918. In fact, the Civil Lord referred to this £4 million as a paltry sum. He explained that for his part he would have liked to see a very much larger global figure available. I think that at least he hinted, although he did not say it in so many words that he was sorry that certain categories had had to be excluded from the distribution. If he was not sorry he ought to have been.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Walter Edwards): I did not hint that at all. The question of the inclusion of categories which many hon. Members have suggested has had no bearing whatever on the matter.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Perhaps I might read to the Committee what the hon. Gentleman said:
I have a great admiration for the D.E.M.S. and the Maritime Regiment, but they do not come into the category of those who served in commissioned ships. There are many others outside the categories laid down in the Bill who could be added, besides the D.E.M.S. and the Maritime Regiment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1948; Vol. 457, c. 1935.]
I do not think it is unfair to describe that as introducing an element of regret that these people are not being brought in. However, the point I am anxious to make is that, unless this Amendment is accepted, there will be some difficulty in arguing with the same force certain Amendments which we have on the Order Paper to Clause 4, by which we are trying to bring into the distribution other categories of people such as those already mentioned. Obviously, the greater the sum for distribution, the stronger will be the argument when we come to deal with

these Amendments. We are trying to smooth the path of the Government by making available the necessary sum, and, further, to induce them to yield to the very reasonable and unanswerable arguments with which they will be confronted later.

Commander Pursey: I rise only to take up a point which has just been made. It is that, if there is a greater sum available, a greater number of categories will be included. There is no justification for that argument whatever. We have now got £5 million. In the previous war we had £14 million, and, when there was nearly three times the amount of prize money available, these categories were excluded, so that there is no justification for that argument at all.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Surely, after the previous war, the dependants of those killed in action and those who were injured, benefited out of the prize money?

Commander Pursey: As regards those killed in action, there is a separate Amendment on the Order Paper which will be discussed later. I leave these categories out.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The hon. and gallant Gentleman may be leaving them out now, but he did not leave them out in what he said a moment ago. We have pointed out that they are not covered under the Bill, and, unless the fund is increased, we shall be up against the same argument which the hon. Gentleman put forward the last time.

Commander Pursey: If the hon. and learned Gentleman had waited, he would have found that I was going on to deal with those categories. Among the categories which have been referred to on Second Reading and again today are the D.E.M.S. and people in merchant ships and so on, and I say that, so far as the Bill is concerned today, and in any comparison with the similar Bill for the previous war, the number of categories referred to were obviously excluded, even with a larger sum of money.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Under Clause 4, the Admiralty can include these merchant ships if they wish to do so. Therefore, those categories can be included in this Bill if the Admiralty wishes.

Commander Pursey: We can discuss that point when we come to Clause 4. What I wish to make quite clear is this. A number of the categories referred to on Second Reading and mentioned again today were not included in the Prize Bill after the first war, although there was a greater amount of prize money available, and, consequently, the argument that, if the total sum of money was increased, those categories would be included, does not follow at all. The more likely result of an increase in the amount available would be that the shares of everybody concerned would be increased, and, in fact, I think the Parliamentary Secretary said on Second Reading that if, after the first division, there was still money available, there would be a second distribution. [Interruption.] My recollection is that he did, in the same way as after the last war.
Let me take up another point which has been mentioned—this question of prize bounty. We may as well get this point clear. There is no such——

The Chairman: I do not think that point arises on this Amendment, and it should not have been mentioned.

Commander Pursey: With all respect, Major Milner, I bow to your Ruling, but it has been mentioned. Probably, an occasion will arise later, when we may deal with it. The general line of the argument about increasing the total figure is simply that of taking another arbitrary figure, but there is no basis for these figures. One might as well add the date to make a new figure and make it higher, but that would bear no relation to the matter at all. I shall vote against this Amendment if there is a Division, because I think there is no justification for increasing the amount. The Admiralty have told us that they have been able to make quite good arrangements and have got more money than they had reason to expect. From all points of view, the amount of money available, the method of distribution and the classes of people concerned are the most satisfactory that can be arranged.

Commander Maitland: I never could quite understand the line taken by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for East Hull (Commander Pursey). Our position is quite simple. It is a difficult matter, but we only seek to get more money for the Services, and

we do not take up that attitude from any party point of view, but because we think they should have it. We believe that the amount of money available should conform much more nearly to that at the end of the previous war than it does under the present Bill. I was very much impressed by the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre), who referred to one point which is worrying me. That is the smallness of the amount of prize money available. I know it is said that it is an arbitrary figure, but it must have some relation to the amount of prize money required.
I would illustrate my point by reference to one incident during the war. When the Italians chucked in their hands, there were in their ports a very large number of ships. I remember one incident in which one of our submarines went into one of these ports and ordered 24 Italian merchant ships to go to sea, and then took them to Malta. The Germans were advancing rapidly, and would have captured the whole of that fleet of merchant ships if it had not been for that action on the part of one of our submarines. As a result, 24 merchant ships fell into our hands in one catch, and if that was not a good catch, I do not know what is. It was a very gallant action and a very good catch. I want to know whether the Prize Fund that is being evolved will be available to the people who took part in the capture of those ships. I consider that, even if it is an arbitrary figure, there is a good case for making that arbitrary figure a larger one.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I am sorry to intervene again, but I do so because the hon. and gallant Member for East Hull (Commander Pursey) and the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy) seem to have an impression that we have gone in for pricking a paper and taking an arbitrary sum. If hon. Members will look at HANSARD, they will see that the Minister of Defence stated that the Droits of Admiralty in this war amounted to £2,625,000. We have deliberately taken this sum so as to include the whole of the Droits of Admiralty and the Droits of the Crown for the purpose of this distribution of Prize. We have done that in order to attain a figure which we know is about right if we are


to cover the requirements we have in mind.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that if we were to alter this sum, we would have to make a new agreement with the Dominions. I challenge that. It does not seem to me to have anything to do with it whatsoever. A certain sum has been allocated out of the total Prize Fund to Droits of the Crown and Droits, as far as this country is concerned, of Admiralty. All we are seeking to do is to take over our Droits of Admiralty. That has nothing to do with the Dominions. Therefore, I think that some better argument, whether of fact or fiction, had better be adduced by the Government.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. J. Dugdale: I will deal, first, with the point raised about the first war by the hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre). He was very certain about the figures in the Prize Deposit Account. He thought they had some effect on the amount of prize money available, and that, therefore, if they were bound to be as he thought, that would be an argument in favour of giving greater sums by way of prize money. The interesting thing about this account is that it includes many sums which have nothing to do with prize money, in spite of the fact that it is called a Prize Account in this somewhat curious Bill.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: "Curious" is the word.

Mr. Dugdale: It includes many other things, and I may say that the Bill introduced after the first world war was every bit as curious as this, if not more so. It includes, among other things, the values of cargoes belonging to our Allies, most of which are to be released to those Allies. It also includes certain cargoes in German ships surrendered after the close of hostilities. It does not take into account certain other items such as ships requisitioned out of prize, without payment into court, and the proceeds and value of ships and cargoes condemned in Colonial ports. In fact, it bears very little relationship to the total sum that shall be paid to the Crown by way of Droits of the Crown and Droits of Admiralty.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked why there were such small sums available. The answer was given to him by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross), who had listened a little more carefully to the remarks I made in my Second Reading speech, and elaborated them. He explained to the hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest and Christchurch that the reason was because the Germans did, in fact, keep their ships in port, and, if they did not, that they scuttled them before there was an opportunity of capturing them. That is the main reason. I am sorry the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not understand what I then said, but I hope that now that his hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry has explained it to him he does.

Commander Maitland: Surely, we did not have such surrenders in the first world war as we had in Italy? I should like to have an answer to that question. An enormous amount of shipping fell into the Government's hands there.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The Parliamentary Secretary said that ships were scuttled. If he takes the case of Tobruk, there the ships were scuttled before the occupation, but we were able to sell them for £100,000. Surely, that ought to be included.

Mr. Dugdale: Before I was interrupted by the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland) I was going to continue to explain the position. We are advised that this money arising from ships captured in ports in the conditions which he described—ports, incidentally, captured by the Army, and not by the Navy——

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Where?

Mr. Dugdale: Some of the German ports, for instance. Many of these ships were in ports, the land behind which had been over-run by our troops, and the ports then fell into our hands due to a combination of naval and military operations. We are advised that, in fact, the ships captured in ports are in no circumstances to be regarded as prize. They do not count as prize, and, for that reason, they are not available for the purpose of distribution. Had they been so captured in the first world war, they would, in the same way, not have been regarded as prize.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The Parliamentary Secretary said that the ships captured in ports were not regarded as prize. Does he include ships surrendered to the Navy in ports?

Mr. Dugdale: A few of them have been subject to prize proceedings, but a very large number captured in port are not subject to prize proceedings, and it is those which hon. Members opposite have more in mind and wish to add to those which are subject to prize proceedings. They are a comparatively small proportion of the total. I may add, incidentally, that many of these ships have actually been handed over both to the U.S.A. and U.S.S.R., so that, obviously, not all of them could be used as Droits of the Crown or Droits of Admiralty.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Why not?

Mr. Dugdale: Because we have not got them, which is a perfectly good reason. They have been handed over to someone else. The hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) said that he wanted to smooth our path. I think he was answered by some of my hon. Friends who explained what was a very obvious point, that, in fact, the question as to whether there is more or less money available does not alter the relative rates of distribution in the classes in which the money should be distributed. I do not propose to discuss it further because I should be out of Order.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: The proportion of ten to one in the Bill is not the proportion carried out after the 1914–18 war because the amount of money was too small, and for no other reason.

Mr. Dugdale: I am sure the hon. and gallant Member knows more about that war than I do, but I maintain that the people to whom it was distributed, and the categories, are not affected by the total sum. We can take any distribution of any sum we like. If we took £1,000 we could distribute it between certain categories; if it were £10 million, it would be the same thing.
I am interested in this desire of the Opposition to make out that they, and they alone, are interested in the welfare

of the sailor. We on this side of the Committee do not consider that they are the only people so interested. It is an easy and very cheap way of gaining popularity to say, "Let us just give more money." We do not consider that this is the way to administer the Navy's affairs, or that the sailor believes it either. The sailor knows that certain sums are due to him and he will expect those sums, but he will not be impressed by anybody who wishes to add other sums which have no connection with the matter at all.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I must say that I think the Parliamentary Secretary's reply to this Amendment and to the speeches which have been made in favour of it, is entirely unsatisfactory, astonishing, unsympathetic, and, if I may use the adjective that he used just now, "cheap" in many respects. He said that we on this side are not the only people interested in the welfare of the sailor. I should imagine that anyone listening to this Debate may well have thought that we on this side were the only people interested in the welfare of the sailor. We have had not one word from the benches opposite in favour of the proposal that those who lost their lives in the last war while serving in the Navy should be——

Mr. Levy: That has no bearing on the question.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Indeed, it has.

Mr. Levy: There is no basis for that assumption.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Had the hon. Member listened to what I said in moving this Amendment, he would have heard me, right at the beginning, mention that as one of the categories which would be covered if this sum were included.

Mr. Levy: I am perfectly well aware that the hon. and learned Member mentioned that as one category that would be included; he dragged it in, basing it on a completely unfounded and insupportable assumption that if this total sum were increased, other categories could be included. I just point out that there is no basis for that argument whatsoever.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The hon. Member says that, but if he waits—as I


hope he will—he will see that the arguments for their exclusion are completely unjustifiable.
I was saying, before that interruption, that in moving this Amendment we on this side had sought to get the total sum available for distribution increased, for the specific reason of providing for that category and other categories. They are not, as yet, provided for in the Bill. On Second Reading we were met by the argument: "The Fund is so small that we cannot do anything about it." Now, not one hon. Member opposite—not even the Parliamentary Secretary—has, as yet—perhaps they may later—said a word in favour of the inclusion of that category, which was included after the last war under the 1918 Act.
We are told by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy) and other hon. Members opposite that the figure we have selected is arbitrary, and that no one can show the right figure. It depends what is meant by "arbitrary." The justification for our figure is that we know that by raising that figure to £6 million we are bringing in what are estimated to be the total amount of Droits of Admiralty. That is the basis. We are then met by the Financial Secretary putting forward three arguments. He says that it would be improper to bring in the whole amount of the Droits of Admiralty; that it would be contrary to precedent. Since when have hon. Members opposite been such enthusiastic supporters of precedent? Yet, what is clear is that this Bill itself departs from precedent, because the Bill brings in a certain proportion of the Droits of Admiralty. If it brings in a proportion, and if a case can be made out for increasing that proportion, why should not that extra amount be brought in?
In my view a case can be made out for increasing that proportion. The way we arrive at the sum—hon. Members opposite may describe it as arbritary if they like—is by bringing in all the Droits of Admiralty. If the hon. Member reads the Explanatory Memorandum he will see it there stated that traditionally
the prerogative right to make grants of prize money has, though not limited to Droits of the Crown, been exercised by granting those droits.
It is not limited to Droits of the Crown. We say in this instance that, having re-

gard to the particular circumstances—first, the exclusion of the categories I have mentioned, and secondly, the small total amount available under this Bill for distribution—an increase to £6 million is warranted so that some provision can be made for those additional categories.
4.45 p.m.
I should have thought hon. Members opposite would have joined with us in supporting this proposal. What does their opposition mean? It means merely that £1¾ million which might go in distribution to these classes—which I hope would be sufficient to enable treating them as the others have been treated—will find its way into the Exchequer. Indeed, I was astonished at the Parliamentary Secretary's reply. I could well have understood that reply had it come from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who was trying to keep something in the coffers of the Exchequer; but I was astonished to hear that coming from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, together with the statement that the Admiralty and the Air Force were very satisfied with the bargain they had made with the Treasury. I do not think that we should rest content with that when we know that the effect of that bargain is to exclude those categories.
The hon. Gentleman's final statement was even more astonishing. His observations about the total extent of the Prize Fund were, indeed, revealing. It may be—I do not know—that the prize account to which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) referred bears very little relationship to the total sum available; but before we pass from this Bill we ought to be told what, in the hon. Gentleman's opinion and in the opinion of the Admiralty, is the total value of the shipping captured in ports which could have been, even if it was not, condemned as prize. I was astonished by his observations that certain vessels captured in ports by, I understood him to say, the Navy were not condemnable as prize. I think I accurately understood him to say that. Surely, any prize shipping captured by the Navy was condemnable as prize. Did the hon. Gentleman really mean that to the extent of the value of those ships which after having been seized—and seized in such circumstances that they were condemnable as prize—


were handed over by us to the U.S.S.R. or the U.S.A., the amount of the Prize Fund distributable to the Navy, and now to the Air Force, is reduced?

Mr. Dugdale: What I said was that many of the ships captured in ports were not included as prize money. Many of those captured in ports in the course of hostilities are included in the account; but many of them were, in fact, captured after hostilities had ceased, owing to the occupation of the ports by the Army.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Does the hon. Gentleman say that all ships which surrendered to His Majesty's Navy are included in prize? That is a specific question I put to him in the course of his speech. He has not, as yet, answered it. Nor has he answered the further question I put to him: Am I right in concluding from his speech that the value of all ships which were captured, which could have been condemned as prize but which have been given away—I think those were his words—to the U.S.S.R. or the U.S.A. has been deducted from the amount of prize distributable under this Bill? We should like an answer to that question; and we ought to have one. If that be true, then it justifies the statement of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the New Forest that this Prize Fund is, he thinks, possibly low because of the release of prizes for political reasons. Before we pass from this we ought to be told the extent to which the Prize Fund available for distribution has been diminished because of the giving away of ships which could have been condemned as prize.
I must confess, I am astonished at the attitude His Majesty's Government have taken up with regard to this extra £1¾ million. If they accepted this Amendment I am quite sure they could do justice to the categories which are now omitted, and which have, in my opinion, legitimate claims for inclusion. If they met us on his Amendment, I am sure that would show there is at any rate a little truth in the Parliamentary Secretary's statement that we are not the only people interested in the welfare of the sailor. In view of the entirely unsatisfactory reply we, on this side of the Committee, have no alternative but to show in the Division Lobby our opinion

of the answers which the Parliamentary Secretary has given and of the Government's attitude upon this matter.

Sir R. Ross: I rise to say only a few words. First of all, I think when the Parliamentary Secretary comes to read the account of this Debate tomorrow he will find that the remarks made by myself and those made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) are not in the slightest degree in conflict.
Chiefly, I wish to allude to the uncalled for and unexpected explosion of party animus on the part of the Parliamentary Secretary. When I spoke I took particular pains to point out to the Parliamentary Secretary that he and I had a common object in view—to increase the amount of this fund. Yet he now taunts us, unjustifiably, with the suggestion that under the guise of attempting to increase this fund, we are trying to steal a party march on him. That is an imputation which should never have been made. This is not a party matter; it is a matter of justice to seamen. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will now realise what an unfortunate thing it is to try to introduce party matters into a subject of this nature.

Captain Marsden: I want to deal mainly with the final words of the Parliamentary Secretary. For some time I have noticed his methods. When he has a bad case he always falls into that sort of stuff. He said we thought we were the only party to do anything for the seamen and the Navy. Not at all. If he looks back on the years he has been in Parliament he will find that we on this side of the House have supported every Measure for the betterment of the conditions of service of the men of the Royal Navy. The only difference between us is that we have also supported the case of the officers, which has so frequently been opposed by hon. Members on the benches opposite.
Let us leave that for a moment and let me give my reasons why I propose to vote for this Amendment. I want to make my own position quite clear. The Amendment itself is clear—it is to try to increase the amount distributable out of the Prize Fund. That is all we ask. How can it be done? There are several other methods into which I will not go—for instance, not to give so much to the Royal


Air Force, or to bring in the prize bounty—but there is also the procedure we suggest, which is to take money from the Droits of Admiralty and place them in the distributable Prize Fund for the benefit of the officers and men of the Royal Navy.
What are the Admiralty, or the Government, proposing to do? They take great exception to taking any money out of the Droits of Admiralty in order to increase the total amount. That is their attitude in Clause 1. But what do they do in Clause 8? In Clause 8 they say that in future there will be no money at all in the Prize Fund; it will all go into the Droits of Admiralty. I see no logic or sense in that. We are told that there is every reason—all sorts of precedence, law and traditions—why the Droits of Admiralty should go to the Admiralty, in other words, into the Exchequer. What we are asking is not

for any money drawn from the Exchequer. It is not money which the taxpayer has to provide in any shape or form. It is a certain fund upon which, we claim, the Navy should have a proper charge.

The Government say, put it into the Exchequer. That is in Clause 1. In Clause 8, which we shall discuss later, they show that they have it clear in their minds that all the money will go into the Droits of Admiralty—in other words, into the Exchequer. It is perfectly clear which way we must vote. I hope hon. Members opposite will not take their tune from the Parliamentary Secretary but on this and other Amendments will vote for what they really think is best for the Service.

Question put, "That the word 'four' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 178; Noes, 94.

Division No. 11]
AYES
[4.56 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)


Albu, A. H.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Fernyhough, E.
Mayhew, C. P.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Follick, M.
Mellish, R. J.


Alpass, J. H.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S
Messer, F.


Attewell, H. C.
Gibson, C. W.
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Ayles, W. H.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mikardo, Ian


Ayrton Gould, Mrs B.
Granville, E. (Eye)
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.


Bacon, Miss A.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Mitchison, G. R.


Balfour, A.
Grey, C. F.
Monslow, W.


Barstow, P. G.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Moody, A. S.


Barton, C.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Battley, J. R.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Hate, Leslie
Moyle, A.


Benson, G.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col R.
Naylor, T. E.


Berry, H.
Harrison, J.
Neal, H. (Clay Cross)


Beswick, F.
Haworth, J.
Oliver, G. H.


Binns, J.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Orbach, M.


Blackburn, A. R.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Paget, R. T.


Blyton, W. R.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Parker, J.


Bowen, R.
Hobson, C. R.
Parkin, B. T.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Horabin, T. L.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hoy, J.
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Burden, T. W.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Peart, T. F.


Byers, Frank
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Perrins, W.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Piratin, P.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Popplewell, E.


Chater, D.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Pursey, Comdr. H.


Cluse, W. S.
Janner, B.
Ranger, J.


Cocks, F. S.
Jenkins, R. H.
Reeves, J.


Collick, P.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Collindridge, F.
Keenan, W.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Collins, V. J.
Kay, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Colman, Miss G. M.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Kinley, J.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Cove, W. G.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Royle, C.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Levy, B. W.
Sargood, R.


Daggar, G.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Segal, Dr. S.


Daines, P.
Lipton, Lt.-Col M.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Longden, F.
Sharp, Granville


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
McAdam, W.
Simmons, C. J.


Deer, G.
McEntee, V. La T.
Skeffington, A. M.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Mack, J. D.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Dodds, N. N.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Skinnard, F. W.


Driberg, T. E. N.
McLeavy, F.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
MacPherson, M. (Stirling)
Snow, J. W.




Solley, L. J.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Williams, R. W. (Wigan)


Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Turner-Samuels, M.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Sylvester, G. O.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Willis, E.


Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Viant, S. P.
Wise, Major F. J.


Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Walker, G. H.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Wyatt, W.


Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Yates, V. F.


Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Warbey, W. N.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Thomas, John R. (Dover)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)



Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Thurtle, Ernest
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Mr. Pearson and


Titterington, M. F.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Mr. Richard Adams.


Tolley, L.
Wilkins, W. A.





NOES


Baldwin, A. E.
Harden, J. R. E.
Molson, A. H. E.


Birch, Nigel
Harris, F. W. (Croydon. N.)
Neven-Spence, Sir B.


Bossom, A. C.
Haughton, S. G.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P


Bower, N.
Head, Brig. A. H
Nutting, Anthony


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Herbert, Sir A. P.
Pickthorn, K.


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Pitman, I. J.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Hollis, M. C.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hope, Lord J.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hurd, A.
Renton, D.


Butcher, H. W.
Keeling, E. H.
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Butter, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Lancaster, Col. C. G
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Channon, H.
Langford-Holt, J.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Smithers, Sir W.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Lipson, D. L.
Studholme, H. G.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Sutcliffe, H.


Darling. Sir W. Y.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Digby, S. W.
Low, A. R. W.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Donner, P. W.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Drayson, G. B.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Touche, G. C.


Drewe, C.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Duthie, W. S.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Eccles, D. M.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Eden, Rt Hon. A.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Marples, A. E.



Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Marsden, Capt. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Commander Agnew and


Gammans, L. D.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Major Conant.


Grimston, R. V.
Mellor, Sir J.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 2, line 4, at the end, to add:
(c) into the Royal Naval Prize Fund and the Royal Air Force Prize Fund, respectively, all further moneys (other than moneys certified by the Treasury to be payable under section six of this Act) which are or may be in the Supreme Court Prize Deposit Account in such proportions as the said sums specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) of this section bear to the aggregate of the proceeds of prize captured in the late war in the Supreme Court Prize Deposit Account.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Bowles): This Amendment is rather wider than the Government's new Clause (Disposal of certain stuns standing to the credit of Prize Deposit Account for prize causes), notice of which is given later on the Order Paper. I therefore hope that hon. Members who make speeches on this Amendment, will not repeat them when we come to the Government's new Clause.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: This Amendment is the second string to our bow in our effort to increase the total fund available for distribution. Not only shall I endeavour to avoid repeating what I am going to say now, when we come to the new Clause, but I shall also endeavour to avoid repeating what I have already said today. The object of the Amendment is to provide that all further moneys, other than moneys certified by the Treasury to be payable under Clause 6 of the Bill, which are or may be in the Supreme Court Prize Deposit Account, shall be brought into the Royal Naval or the Royal Air Force Prize Funds in the proportions mentioned in Clause 1.
It is clear both from what was said last Thursday night in the discussion on the Resolution which was then debated, and from what the Parliamentary Secretary has already said today, that there may well be further sums in respect of


ships or goods condemned as prize. If that be so, why should not those sums go to augment the Prize Funds available for distribution? Why should the ceiling be fixed at £5,250,000 if it be the case, as the hon. Gentleman has already indicated today, that there may be further ships or goods condemnable as prize?
All that this Amendment seeks to do is to ensure that if there are any further ships condemned as prize, the prize money will go into the Prize Fund. Indeed, the new Clause set out on the Order Paper in itself implies that there will be some further condemning. In the third line it refers to ships or goods "not then condemned." That obviously implies that there will be, since the date referred to there, some further condemning. In these circumstances, and having regard to the arguments already adduced, which are equally cogent for the inclusion of this new Subsection, I hope that we shall find that the attitude of the Government has altered since the last Amendment was under discussion, and that the Government are, at least, prepared to say that if there is any further ship or if there are any further goods condemned as prize, that then, notwithstanding the passage of this Bill, those sums can be brought into the account and made available for distribution.

Mr. Dugdale: I am not quite certain how far I shall be in Order in referring to the new Clause, which I gather from your Ruling, Mr. Bowles, is to be discussed with this Amendment.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: On a point of Order. Surely we have not agreed to discuss both this Amendment and the new Clause at once? That, in my submission would be extremely inconvenient.

The Deputy-Chairman: My Ruling was that this Amendment is rather wider than the Government's proposed new Clause, and that I did not want a repetition, when the new Clause is reached, of the arguments in support of this Amendment. I am not asking that the new Clause shall be taken quite formally when it is reached.

Mr. Dugdale: A number of points were discussed in some detail at a late hour last Thursday night, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows; and I do not

want to repeat more than necessary the arguments that I used then. The main point with which we are dealing here is that of goods which are non-condemnable.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Not in this Amendment.

Mr. Dugdale: Or non-condemned.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Not in this Amendment.

Mr. Dugdale: These are moneys which the hon. and learned Gentleman wants to place in the Prize Account. We are, in fact, placing in the Prize Account all goods which are condemned as prize. These goods with which the hon. and learned Gentleman is concerned are non condemnable. It would be manifestly impossible to place them in the Prize Fund, desirable though it may be to increase that fund—and it might be very desirable to increase it if we could do so, and I wish there had been many more ships that had been condemned as prize, that could be used. In fact, all ships, all goods which are non-condemnable cannot be placed in this Fund, and the hon. and learned Gentleman, therefore, cannot have them given up as prize and added to the prize distribution. That is the short answer to his question. As he knows, the sums involved are comparatively small—very small indeed. We should be only too glad if they could be added to the Fund, but the position is that they are outside the terms of reference, which apply simply to condemnable goods.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: That is not at all the purpose of this Amendment. It may be that the Parliamentary Secretary is right, but there was never any intention to try to bring non-condemnable cargoes into the scope of the Amendment. We are committed under the Bill to pay out certain sums, £4,000,000 to the Royal Navy and £1,250,000 to the Royal Air Force. It may well be that, for a great number of reasons, when these sums have been paid out, there will be a balance remaining within the Supreme Court Prize Deposit Account. I think that is bound to be so for the reasons which were advanced on the Second Reading, and in respect of which we have had no answer from the Government. I understand that the Parliamentary


Secretary proposes to start to pay out shares practically immediately. If he does that, the Government have to fix the value of the share list to make certain that the money does not run out——

Mr. Dugdale: So long as "practically immediately" is understood to mean next year and not at this moment, because I do not want anyone to think that shares are going to be distributed tomorrow or the next day. They will be distributed about April of next year.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: From the time the money begins to arrive in his Department? Presumably the hon. Gentleman is not going to wait until he knows the total amount but will meet the claims from the time they begin to arrive. If he does that, any prudent person would keep a balance in reserve to meet unexpected claims. All we want to do is to ensure that all sums that may be obtained, over and above what are specifically stated in Clause 1, shall, at a later date, be contributed to the two Funds in the same proportion as that which this House has decided to allocate. There is no question of non-condemnable goods or trying to rope in something which is not allowed. We want to make certain that there is no balance left in the Fund which, instead of going to the Services concerned, merely reverts to the Exchequer under the Resolution which was passed the other night. We want to see that all moneys that can justifiably be considered as the subject of prize are, in fact, distributed as prize. That is all that we are seeking to do.

Mr. Dugdale: The main answer to the hon. and gallant Gentleman is that the Treasury are not only going to receive this admittedly very small sum of £7,000, but they have guaranteed that they will be responsible for any claim that may arise. If, therefore, they have guaranteed to settle the claims, they must, in fact, be entitled to the money with which to settle them.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I think that the Committee may be getting into a slight confusion with regard to this Amendment. We are not concerned here with what claims the Treasury may undertake to meet out of the £7,000. These will be claims not made by people seeking to benefit under this Bill, but claims by the owners of the goods or by people

who have some interest in the goods, and for the purpose of discussing this Amendment we can surely put on one side for the time being all questions of the Treasury undertaking to meet claims upon that sum of money, because these claims will not be claimed by people entitled to benefit under the Bill.
I want to bring the Parliamentary Secretary back to consideration of this Amendment. The Amendment covers all further moneys which are, or may be, in the Supreme Court Prize Deposit Account—all further moneys. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that these further moneys could be divided into two categories: (1) moneys in respect of ships or goods condemned as prize; (2) money in respect of ships or goods which cannot be condemned as prize. It is well to have those two categories in one's mind distinctly. With regard to the first category, does the hon. Gentleman really say at this time that there will be nothing else condemned as prize? If he cannot say that, then he ought to accept the proposition that any further moneys in respect of prize should be added to the Prize Fund.
5.15 p.m.
Before I pass from that point, may I remind him of what he said in winding up the Debate on the previous Amendment, when he referred to the possibility—I cannot quote his exact words—of further ships or goods being condemned? This Amendment would achieve the result that if further goods were condemned the proceeds would go to the Prize Fund in the proportions mentioned in the Bill, and I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman should oppose that, if he relies upon precedent, because under precedent these sums would normally go to the Prize Fund and not to the Exchequer, as they will if this Amendment is not accepted. It would be a departure from precedent for the proceeds of prize to go to the Exchequer. That is as far as the first category is concerned.
The second category, which is the only category to which the hon. Gentleman referred, is the category of the proceeds of goods not condemnable as prize. All the hon. Gentleman has to say is that it is manifestly impossible to pay the proceeds of such goods into the Prize Fund. Does he really mean that? I should have thought that the passage of this Amendment would have achieved what he has announced to be


manifestly impossible. If the Committee likes to say that the proceeds of these goods should go to the Prize Fund, surely that would be effective and what the hon. Gentleman has declared to be manifestly impossible would, in fact, be achieved. It is quite true that so far as that part is concerned there is no precedent, but the argument in favour of the departure from precedent in that respect is surely a very strong one, and is the same argument as that adduced in the discussion of the previous Amendment.
I am sorry to have spoken again on this Amendment. I hoped that I would not have to do so, but the Parliamentary Secretary's reply was very unsatisfactory, which may have been my fault for not taking up more time in explaining the argument, but I tried to put it as briefly as I could. I hope that now I have tried to make the argument clear to him, he will deal fully with it and will not brush it on one side by saying that it is manifestly impossible to put these sums into the Prize Fund.

Mr. Dugdale: I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. and learned Gentleman. That obviously must he my fault

and not the hon. and learned Gentleman's. So far as there has been any misunderstanding, I will try to correct it. The position is that amounts to go into the Prize Fund already include all the amounts as estimated as likely to be condemned in future. There will not, in fact, be any condemned proceeds in the amount to pass to the Treasury; they just will not pass to the Treasury. It is perfectly true to say, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, that it is possible for the money to be paid into any Fund into which Parliament should desire that it should be paid. I said in my speech that this House could do anything it likes with the Prize Fund—I said that it could presumably pay the incomes of all hon. Members into the Prize Fund. It is obviously perfectly competent to the House to pay any sums which it wants to pay into the Prize Fund. I submit, however, that this is not a proper amount to pay in. The amount is very small and would not greatly affect the Prize Fund one way or the other.

Question put. "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided: Ayes. 92; Noes, 183.

Division No. 12.]
AYES
[5.21 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Harden, J. R. E.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Baldwin, A. E.
Haughton, S. G.
Nutting, Anthony


Birch, Nigel
Head, Brig. A. H.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Bossom, A. C.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.


Bower, N.
Hollis, M. C.
Pickthorn, K.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hope, Lord J.
Pitman, I. J.


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Keeling, E. H.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Prior-Palmer, Brig, O.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Lancaster, Col C. G.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Butcher, H. W.
Langford-Holt, J.
Renton, D.


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Channon, H.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lipson. D. L.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col U. (Ludlow)
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col O. E.
Low, A. R. W.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Smithers, Sir W.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Studholme, H. G.


Digby, S. W.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Sutcliffe, H.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Donner, P. W.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Drayson, G. B.
Manningham-Butler, R. E.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Drewe, C.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Marples, A. E.
Touche, G. C.


Duthie, W. S.
Marsden, Capt. A.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Eccles, D. M.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Webbs, Sir H. (Abbey)


Eden, Rt. Hon A.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Mellor, Sir J.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Molson, A. H. E.



Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Morris-Jones, Sir H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gammans, L. D.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Major Conant and


Grimston, R. V.
Nicholson, G.
Brigadier Mackeson.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Granville, E. (Eye)
Perrins, W.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Grey, C. F.
Piratin, P.


Albu, A. H.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Popplewell, E.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Proctor, W. T.


Alpass, J. H.
Hale, Leslie
Pursey, Comdr. H


Attewell, H. C.
Hamilton, Lieut -Col. R
Ranger, J.


Ayles, W. H.
Harrison, J.
Reeves, J.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Haworth, J.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Bacon, Miss A.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M


Balfour, A.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Barstow, P. G.
Hewitson, Capt. M
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Barton, C.
Hobson, C. R.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Batlley, J. R.
Horabin, T. L
Royle, C.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Hoy, J.
Sargood, R.


Benson, G.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing W.)
Segal, Dr. S.


Berry, H.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Beswick, F.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Sharp, Granville


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Simmons, C. J.


Binns, J.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Skeffington, A. M.


Blackburn, A. R.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Blyton, W. R.
Janner, B.
Skinnard, F. W.


Bowen, R.
Jenkins, R. H.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Bramall, E. A.
Jones, P. Asterlsy (Hitchin)
Snow, J. W.


Brock, D. (Halifax)
Keenan, W.
Solley, L. J.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Sylvester, G. O.


Burden, T. W.
Kinley, J.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Byers, Frank
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Levy, B. W.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Chamberlain, R. A.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Chater, D.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Longden, F.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Cluse, W. S.
Lyne, A. W.
Thurtle, Ernest


Cobb, F. A.
McAdam, W.
Titterington, M. F.


Cocks, F. S.
McEntee, V. La T.
Tolley, L.


Collick, P.
Mack, J. D.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Collindridge, F.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Collins, V. J.
McLeavy, F.
Vernon, Maj W. F.


Colman, Miss G. M.
MacPherson, M. (Stirling)
Viant, S. P.


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Mallalieu, J, P. W. (Huddersfield)
Walker, G. H.


Cove, W. G.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Cross man, R. H. S.
Mayhew, C. P.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Daggar, G.
Mellish, R. J.
Warbey, W. N.


Daines, P.
Messer, F.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Weitzman, D.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Mikardo, Ian
While, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Deer, G.
Mitchison, G. R.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Moody, A. S.
Wilkins, W. A.


Dodds, N. N.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Williams, R. W. (Wigan)


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Moyle, A.
Wills, E.


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Oliver, G. H.
Wise, Major F. J.


Ewart, R.
Orbach, M.
Woodburn, Rt Hon A.


Fernyhough, E.
Paget, R. T.
Wyatt, W.


Follick, M.
Parker, J.
Yates, V. F.


Foot, M. M.
Parkin, B. T.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)



Gibson, C. W.
Paton, J. (Norwich)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Peart, T. F.
Mr. Pearson and




Mr. Richard Adams.

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. J. P. L. THOMAS:

Page 2, line 4, at end, add—
(2) If His Majesty is pleased by Proclamation or Order in Council to signify his intention to make a grant of prize bounty in relation to the late war in accordance with the provisions of section forty-two of the Naval Prize Act, 1864, there shall be paid by the Treasury out of moneys provided by Parliament into the Royal Naval Prize Fund and the Royal Air Force Prize Fund, respectively, upon production of an official decree of the Prize Court

such proportions of the aggregate of the sums ascertained to be due in respect of prize bounty in accordance with the provisions of section forty-three of the Naval Prize Act, 1864, as the said sums specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) of this section bear to the aggregate of the proceeds of prize captured in the late war in the Supreme Court Prize Deposit Account.

The Deputy-Chairman: This Amendment and the consequential Amendment on Clause 2 are out of Order because they visualise the initiation of expenditure without a Financial Resolution of the


Crown; and, although the scheme of the Naval Prize Fund under the 1864 Act is still in force, the scheme visualised here extends to the Royal Air Force.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Distribution of Naval and Marine prize payments.)

5.30 p.m.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: I beg to move, in page 2, line 13, at the end, to insert:
after the conditions of entitlement and the scale of shares of the different ranks have received the approval of a Select Committee of the House of Commons.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will follow the example of his predecessor and withdraw these conditions of entitlement and the scale of shares for re-examination. The argument for doing so seems far stronger than it was in 1918; first, because a great many men are excluded from participation, secondly, because the conditions governing the awards to the men invalided out and to the dependants of men killed are so stringent, thirdly, because the qualifying period is a fixed period and fails to take into account the varying lengths of service, and, fourthly, because the proposed scale has been arbitrarily decided, whereas in 1918 it was fixed by a Departmental Committee.
The Parliamentary Secretary will, no doubt, have considered the procedure adopted in 1918, and he will have seen that dissatisfaction was expressed in the House in regard to the scales. On that occasion Conservative Members thought the scales were too wide, and although they had been agreed by a Departmental Committee, the First Lord acted in a very statesmanlike manner and withdrew the regulations which formed the second part of the Proclamation, and subsequently issued a further Proclamation. There is no reason why a similar procedure should not be adopted this time. We ask that the matter should be reconsidered, and I hope very much that the Government will not ride rough-shod over the many men concerned.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I am inclined to be in favour of the setting up of a Select Committee to consider the question of conditions of

entitlement. But as this is a case of the pirates dividing up the loot without any regard to the people who have played a part in its capture—some Members seem to be living in the times of Captain Kidd and Paul Jones—I want to put in a claim for the miners, if there is any booty to be divided.

The Deputy-Chairman: It is not that miners are necessarily out of Order, but that the Debate cannot be narrowed down to individual categories. The matter before the Committee is whether or not there shall be reference to a Select Committee.

Mr. Hughes: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Bowles, and conclude by expressing the hope that the position of the miners will be considered by the Select Committee.

Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: I hope that the Government will see their way to set up this machinery. When the Parliamentary Secretary considers this proposal, he will see that there is a great deal to recommend it. When we were discussing Clause 1, the hon. and gallant Member for East Hull (Commander Pursey) drew the parallel, in regard to certain suggestions then put forward of what happened at the conclusion of hostilities in 1918. I think that, within the calm atmosphere of a Select Committee, it will be possible to elucidate that there are very great differences between the present situation and the situation then ruling.
Perhaps I may be allowed to give one illustration by way of example. The hon. and gallant Member said that D.E.M.S., the convoy staffs, were ruled out altogether in 1918, but the Select Committee would, of course, find out that there is a very good reason for that, namely, that the convoy system, in view of our experience of the 1914 war, was started in this war at the moment it was declared. I cannot help feeling we are not alone in our view that to confine the distribution of prize money to those in offensively armed warships, while denying any distribution to those engaged in the defence of merchant ships, introduces an anomaly which we all wish to see corrected. I believe that a Select Committee would be the best way of dealing with this matter, because in a Select Committee these matters could be calmly argued and all the necessary evidence called to arrive at a fair decision.

Captain Marsden: I hope that the Government will accede to the request for the establishment of a Select Committee. We feel that such a committee will apportion the prize money in a much fairer manner than that set forth in the Royal Proclamation. When the Admiralty decided that prize money should go, not to those directly responsible for the capture of a prize, but to all those who assisted in winning the war, they certainly opened the door pretty wide. I am chiefly concerned about those who did the capturing, and I am wondering why the Royal Air Force have come into this. I am not one who objects to a man getting what he can, whether he deserves it or not, but I am chiefly concerned to see that the people for whom I speak, get their fair share.
As for the Royal Air Force, they did nothing so far as prizes are concerned, although, of course, they most gallantly helped in the winning of the war. As a matter of fact, if they had sunk fewer ships at sea, the Navy would have had more captures to add to the Prize Fund, and to that extent Bomber Command decreased rather than increased the Fund. As for their share in the winning of the war, no one could be a more hearty admirer than I am of the part they played. However, the fact remains that when the Admiralty departed from the general idea that those who assisted in the capture of a prize should participate in its distribution, they threw the net very wide indeed, and made it possible to include almost every one who went to sea.
It is really extraordinary the people who are put in and the people who have been left out. Those people already mentioned who served so gallantly in merchant ships have been eliminated and others in the Merchant Service who received danger rates of pay to the extent of £10 a month get the prize money in addition. I think that a Select Committee would give a fairer apportionment, because the present Bill, followed up by the Royal Proclamation, is most unsatisfactory.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: There can be no doubt whatever that the proposed allocation of prize money is most unjust and unsatisfactory. All we are asking for is that the same procedure should be adopted as was adopted after the 1914–

1918 war, when a committee was set up under the Admiralty to decide on the matter. At present we do not even know who decided on the scale laid down of 10 to 1 and the allocations made under that scale, and perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will inform us: that is a most important question. I cannot help thinking that Members on the Government benches desire that justice should be done in this matter.

Mr. Willis: Two to one, or one to one, instead of 10 to one.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: If the hon. Member will study the distribution of awards he will see that at present it is most unjust. All we are asking for is a Select Committee to inquire into the distribution in order to see that justice is done to officers and men of the Navy, as was done after the first world war. I cannot understand why there should be any opposition to that request.

Sir R. Ross: It is very embarrassing to discuss this Bill in Committee because some of its most important provisions which, we assume, will be carried into effect, appear in the draft Royal Proclamation on Prize Money. If they had appeared in the form of a Schedule to the Bill we could have discussed the matter much more fully, but as it is we are prevented from discussing the merits and demerits of distribution. One certain thing, however, is that the present position is so grotesque that the Parliamentary Secretary can hardly put it forward as a suitable solution. For instance, there are those who made the greatest sacrifice of all in the war at sea, those who lost their lives in action and those who were wounded so as to be incapacitated. There is nothing for the dependants of those who were killed, and nothing for those who were so wounded unless they served for a specified term. That is a gross injustice. I cannot now deal with these cases in detail, but I cannot imagine that any Minister of the Crown can stand up for a distribution of prize money which excludes the dependants of those who made the supreme sacrifice.

Commander Maitland: If this Committee has any useful purpose at all, it is to discuss these matters fully, and to try to show where mistakes have been made in the draft Proclamation. It was wrong


of the Parliamentary Secretary to give the impression to the Committee that sailors were happy, that they knew they were entitled to so much, and were quite satisfied with their share. We have tried to put forward cases where injustice has been done, and we have suggested the appointment of a Select Committee to consider special and difficult cases of entitlement. There are so many of these cases that I do not know whether they all get prize money or not.
For instance, what about pilots of aircraft who took off from merchant ships to shoot down enemy aircraft? There were few more gallant deeds done during the war than those done by these men. The Bill does not show whether they will get prize money or not. If these pilots were Fleet Air Arm men were they working in merchant ships, or what was their position when they were doing this work? There must be many other cases. It is impossible to believe that all the various categories of entitlement are included at the moment, and that is why there should be a Select Committee to consider the whole question.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. J. Dugdale: Various reasons have been adduced for setting up a Select Committee, the principal one being that such a Committee was set up after the 1914–18 war. The main reason for setting up a Select Committee after the first world war was that there were so many complaints in the House about the very great differentiation of scale. As a result of that Committee that great differentiation was somewhat narrowed. Today, the scale has been based, roughly speaking, on that for gratuities, which is the scale which was accepted by Members on all sides. It was, I think, introduced by the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson). The hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) wanted to know who decided the scale. He must know that the proposal was brought forward by the Government, that it was a Government decision and is their responsibility.
I want to take this opportunity, although I may not be strictly in Order, of saying that the Government have given further consideration to one point in connection with the scales, and have decided to consider whether it is possible to allow

prize money to be paid to the next-of-kin of all who were killed or who lost their lives during active service at sea in their first six months of sea service. I think this is the point which has concerned hon. Members on all sides most of all. I know that feelings have been expressed about different categories, which will be discussed shortly, but I think this aspect of the matter has been of most concern to hon. Members. I am sure they will be glad to hear that the Government have decided to make this alteration in the draft Royal Proclamation.

Captain Marsden: The hon. Gentleman said that a gratuity would be paid to the dependants and relatives of all those who lost their lives at sea. Does that include dependants and relatives of merchant seamen who come under the general heading of D.E.M.S.?

Mr. Dugdale: No, certainly not. I mean all those who would have been included had they completed their six months' service in a ship of war, which is the present category, and who were, unfortunately, killed before that six months' term was completed. It does not alter the category we have laid down now. Those who served in a ship of war will get it, and those who did not will not get it.

Sir R. Ross: Is it proposed to bring in those who were incapacitated by wounds during their six months' service?

Mr. Dugdale: No, the only decision which has been made is to include the next of kin of those who actually lost their lives.

Commander Noble: What the Parliamentary Secretary has just told the Committee emphasises our request for a Select Committee. He said that following the 1914–18 war there had been so many complaints that a Select Committee was set up. The concession which he has just announced is the result of complaints from this side of the House. If a Select Committee were set up many more points could be brought forward, and could be given proper consideration after due deliberation. There are commodores of convoys, naval officers serving in merchant ships and so on. There are also those who went through great danger in bomb and mine disposal. If I might turn for one moment to the actual scales——

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must not go into scales in any detail or into categories at all. I laid that Rule down early on and the hon. and gallant Gentleman must stick to it.

Commander Noble: I was only proposing to point out that the many anomalies in the scales amplify what we are suggesting—the need for a Select Committee.

Sir Ian Fraser: I should like to add that the decision just announced will obviously be welcomed by very many. The decision not to pay in cases where a man is disabled would appear to be an anomaly, and again emphasises the obvious advantages of considering this matter in the quiet of a committee room rather than during a Committee stage on the Floor of the House.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I should like to support what has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble). There have been a great number of complaints from this side of the House, and I am very glad that the Parliamentary Secretary has met one I put to him in the Second Reading Debate—the matter of the Jervis Bay. However, he is only touching on the fringe of the problem, and in what he has now propounded, that the scales in general follow gratuities, he is under a complete misapprehension. Gratuities were for general service. Naval prize money was for specific tasks that were undertaken by specific sections of the Service. There is no comparison between the two at all.
He has not got to the root of our complaint, which arises from the fact that six months is the qualifying period. If a sailor has under six months, he cannot qualify, but if he has over six months he cannot help but qualify, which seems to be entirely wrong. Many categories have been mentioned today, and I will not mention any more, but the Parliamentary Secretary knows full well that dozens of people who were probably injured under the rule, cannot qualify, whilst a great number of people who have never earned prize money will, in fact, qualify. Therefore, I suggest to him that it is not only necessary to review, as he has done, the specific cases, but to go to the root of

the problem, which is the six months minimum period.
I ask the hon. Gentleman to agree to this Select Committee which can judge the various issues, as was done after the 1914–1918 war. There is nothing here of a half or a quarter grant to certain categories, which was a most valuable thing after the previous war, because it enabled those who knew the Navy and the work done to consider the whole range in which proper prize money was to be given. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will reconsider this matter.

Mr. Brendan Bracken: I join with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest and Christ-church (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) in expressing the hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will reconsider his decision. As my hon. and gallant Friend said, it was his effort which led the Parliamentary Secretary to take into account, for instance, the case of the Jervis Bay and the glorious service rendered to this country by Captain Fogarty Fagen and his comrades. We are dealing with a whole series of claims of a highly complicated nature. They cannot be dealt with on the Floor of this House and they should not be dealt with by the Admiralty on its own. I have the greatest respect for the Admiralty, but I know how large a part the Treasury plays in its affairs. A case has been made out for a Select Committee. We are not seeking controversy in this matter. It is not a party matter at all. This affects all sorts and conditions of naval persons, and I think the Parliamentary Secretary should give way.
It is all very well for the Parliamentary Secretary to say that what happened after the 1918 war is not binding on us now. It is not. But I can assure him that if he looks at this matter again, he will see that it affects humble people serving on the lower deck of the Navy and is full of anomalies. If there was the prospect of solving this matter here by our staying all night, there might be something to be said for it, but I suggest that it is a matter which should go to a Select Committee upstairs. On both sides of the Committee there are Members who served in the Royal Navy, or are deeply attached to it, and are anxious to see justice done in this matter.
It may be that prize money is now out of date. I am not now going into the arguments for and against, but I do not know of any case which has occurred here in my time—and I have been a Member of the House of Commons for 20 years—that is more deserving of examination by a Select Committee than the one we are putting forward tonight. I cannot understand the Parliamentary Secretary rejecting it. I am sure many hon. Members behind him share my lack of understanding of his attitude. This is beyond party and has reference to the service rendered during the war by the Royal Navy. Those connected with the Royal Navy know that this is a matter of justice to humble people, and on this occasion we should not bring party into it at all. This is a Bill which should go upstairs, so that we can consider the matter carefully though not in any partisan spirit, and then report back to the House of Commons.
I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary can commit the Government now. I feel sure he could for once, but if he cannot, he could make a statement saying that he will consult with the First Lord. I know if the First Lord were sitting in the Parliamentary Secretary's place he would agree with me that this is a case—there is not any attempt

here to introduce party politics—of simple, elementary justice, to me people to whom we owe so much for what they did during the war.

Mr. J. Dugdale: I should like to make a few observations. In the first place, I agree that this is not a party matter and I am glad to pay tribute to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) for his part in the matter. May I make it quite clear that there was a feeling on both sides of the Committee, and it was due to that feeling as expressed in the House of Commons that we have decided to make this alteration. It proves that the House of Commons is the best place in which to discuss this matter and find out what are the opinions of hon. Members. We can have regard to those opinions and as a result of them, we can, as we have in this case, effect alterations. I am afraid I cannot agree to the appointment of a Select Committee. The Floor of the House is where these matters should be discussed, and I am, therefore, unable to accept the Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 85; Noes, 188.

Division No. 13.]
AYES
[5.58 p.m.


Baldwin, A. E.
Harden, J. R. E.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Birch, Nigel
Head, Brig. A. H.
Nutting, Anthony


Bossom, A. C.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Bower, N.
Hollis, M. C.
Pitman, I. J.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hope, Lord J.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Howard, Hon. A.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Keeling, E. H.
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Butcher, H. W.
Langford-Holt, J.
Ropner, Col. L.


Butter, Rt. Hn. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Channon, H.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lipson. D. L.
Smithers, Sir W.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Lloyd, Setwyn (Wirral)
Studholme, H. G.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Low, A. R. W.
Sutcliffe, H.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Darting, Sir W. Y.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Digby, S. W.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Donner, P. W.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Drayson, G. B.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Touche, G. C.


Drewe, C.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Dugdale, Maj, Sir T. (Richmond)
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Duncan, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (City of Lond.)
Marlowe, A. A. H.



Duthie, W. S.
Marples, A. E.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Marsden, Capt A.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)



Fyfe, rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M
Mellor, Sir J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gammans, L. D.
Molson, A. H. E.
Commander Agnew and


Grimston, R. V.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Major Conant.




NOES


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Albu, A. H.
Griffiths, Rt Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Proctor, W. T.


Allan, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hale, Leslie
Pursey, Comdr. H.


Alpass, J. H.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Ranger, J.


Attewell H. C.
Harrison, J.
Reeves, J.


Ayles, W. H.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Bacon, Miss A.
Hobson, C. R.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Balfour, A.
Horabin, T. L.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Barstow, P. G.
Hoy, J.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Barton, C.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Royle, C.


Battley, J. R.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Sargood, R.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Segal, Dr. S.


Benson, G.
Hughes, H. D. (W'Iverh'pton, W.)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Berry, H.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Sharp, Granville


Beswick, F.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Simmons, C. J.


Binns, J.
Jenkins, R. H.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Blackburn, A. R.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Skinnard, F. W.


Blyton, W. R.
Keenan, W.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Bowen, R.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Snow, J. W.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Kinley, J.
Solley, L. J.


Bramall, E. A.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Lindgren, G. S.
Sylvester, G. O.


Brown, George (Belper)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Longden, F.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Burden, T. W.
Lyne, A. W.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Byers, Frank
McAdam, W.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
McEntee, V. La T.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Chater, D.
Mack, J. D.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Chetwynd, G. R.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Thurtle, Ernest


Cluse, W. S.
McLeavy, F.
Titterington, M. F.


Cobb, F. A.
MacPharson, M. (Stirling)
Tolley, L.


Cocks, F. S.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Collick, P.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Collindridge, F.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Ungoed-Thomas L.


Collins, V. J.
Marquand, H. A.
Vernon, Maj W. F.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Mellish, R. J.
Viant, S. P.


Cove, W. G.
Messer, F.
Walkden, E.


Grossman, R. H. S.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Walker, G. H.


Daggar, G.
Mikardo, Ian
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Daines, P.
Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Mitchison, G. R.
Warbey, W. N.



Moody, A. S.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Weitzman, D.


Deer, G.
Moyle, A.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Naylor, T. E.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Diamond, J.
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Dodds, N. N.
Neill, W. F. (Belfast, N.)
Wilkins, W. A.


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Oliver, G. H.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Edwards, John (Blackburn)

Williams, R. W. (Wigan)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Orbach, M.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Paget, R. T.
Willis, E.


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.


Ewart, R.
Parker, J.
Wise, Major F. J.


Fernyhough, E.
Parkin, B. T.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Follick, M.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Wyatt, W.


Foot, M. M.
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Yates, V. F.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S
Pearson, A.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Gibson, C. W.
Peart, T. F.



Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Perrins, W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Granville, E. (Eye)
Piratin, P.
Mr. Joseph Henderson and


Grey, C. F.
Popplewell, E.
Mr. Richard Adams.


Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Application of R.A.F. prize payments).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Shackleton: It must be obvious that the superior wisdom of the Air Force as regards distribution has

avoided a great deal of serious trouble. I should like the Under-Secretary of State for Air, whom I am glad to see here, to consider certain further aspects regarding the distribution of funds that are available to the Air Ministry. The Royal Air Force Association are naturally extremely appreciative of the large grants which they are receiving. I am sure, too, that the British Legion and other bodies are pleased with their token grants.
I would especially like to urge the case of the S.S.A.F.A., a body which I have the honour to serve as a member of the council. It is rendering service to all three Services, the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. It does so upon a very small grant provided by the Government, and only about one-tenth of its outgoings are covered by that grant. It disburses money not only in the way of services but in actual cash. It is not always able to draw on the R.A.F. Benevolent Fund or from other Service Funds. I am sure that the work that it does must be known to Members in all sections of the House. In my own constituency of Preston S.S.A.F.A. does a first-class job. I hope, therefore, that the Under-Secretary of State for Air will consider giving S.S.A.F.A. a fairly good-sized grant, say, something in the neighbourhood of £50,000 or £60,000, which would go some way to make up for the serious deficit it is facing at present.

Mr. George Ward: On the Second Reading of the Bill, I put forward the suggestion that the Royal Air Force ought to make some effort to trace people entitled to prize money. Since then I have had conversations with people outside, and I have listened to members of the Royal Navy in the House trying to decide how they are going to do it. They are getting into such difficulties that I must admit, and agree with the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Shackleton), that perhaps our way of doing it is, in the circumstances, the best, after all.
On the other hand, I adhere to the point I made on Second Reading that the terms of this Clause are too vague. I ask the Under-Secretary of State for Air to consider this matter and see whether before the Third Reading, he can devise some phrases to make clear how this money will be used. All the Clause says is that this money will be used for the benefit of charitable organisations at the discretion of the Air Council. That is not enough. In his reply in the Second Reading Debate, the Under-Secretary told us that roughly £600,000 of this money would be used for the Air Force of today and a similar amount for those who were in the Service during the war, by means of the Royal Air Force Benevolent Fund, the Royal Air Force Association, the British Legion, St. Dunstan's, S.S.A.F.A.,

etc. They are highly commendable charities, but they should be specified in the Bill.
The £600,000 for the Air Force of today will not, I understand, be given to the central fund as a lump sum, but the amount will be invested by the central fund and the interest will be given in the form of annuities to certain approved charities. I should like to know whether that is so, or whether the money will be given in lump sums to be used as those charities like. It is an important point and should be made clear in the Clause. The only other point I made in my Second Reading speech was that I thought the Royal Air Force was not getting enough. I still think that, but I realise that nothing can be done about it because the Air Council have agreed to it.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): I know how well S.S.A.F.A., mentioned by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Shackleton), serves the interests of past and present members of the Royal Air Force and their dependants. As I said on Second Reading, they will receive a grant. I can only add that I fear it will not be as great as the £50,000 or £60,000 which the hon. Member suggested, but it will be substantial.
I come to the points put by the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. G. Ward). I have always known him to have the interests of the Royal Air Force at heart and was much encouraged to hear him say that he was a convert to the principle of paying not to individuals but to organisations for the benefit of past and present members of the Service. He wanted me to make clear how the money would be used. I cannot undertake to make it clear in the Bill, but I will undertake to consider with my right hon. Friend how best we can make clear, either in the House or outside exactly what we intend to do with the powers which will be granted to us if this Bill is passed.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(His Majesty's Forces to which this Act applies.)

6.15 p.m.

Sir R. Ross: I beg to move, in page 3, line 14, to leave out the first "and."

The Deputy-Chairman: Perhaps the next two Amendments in the name of the hon. Member: in line 14, after "war," insert:
and officers and other ranks of the Maritime Regiment, Royal Artillery,
and in line 14, after "war," insert:
and naval ranks and ratings and officers and other ranks of the Royal Marines serving in merchant ships";
and the Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton): in line 33, after "service," insert:
or who were serving in the Anti-Aircraft (Maritime) Regiment, Royal Artillery, on such ship or vessel,
might also be discussed, with, if hon. Gentlemen desire it, separate Divisions.

Sir R. Ross: The first Amendment is a drafting Amendment consequential on the next two. The second one deals with inclusion of officers and other ranks of the Maritime Regiment, Royal Artillery, within the benefits of the Bill. The third seeks to include naval ranks and ratings and officers and other ranks of the Royal Marines serving in merchant ships.
The most illogical thing in this Bill has been the exclusion of those who served in convoys as combatants because their position was distinguishable from that of the merchant seamen. I would not say that the financial reward of the merchant seamen was in any degree excessive, but they were getting very much more money than the men who manned the guns, whether they were Maritime Regiment, R.A., or naval ratings. The merchant seamen were getting a considerable bonus, whereas the Service personnel in the ships were not. The Maritime Regiment, R.A., were really only soldiers as a matter of administrative convenience. I am glad to see that an Amendment to the same effect is down in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton).
It is ridiculous that because at that period of the war it was more convenient to send soldiers to sea to perform functions which normally fell to the lot of sailors, they should be excluded from the benefits of the Prize Fund. They were in a very special category. Anyone who had to deal with matters of compassionate leave, with which I was concerned

at one time, knew that the Maritime Regiment, R.A., were under particular difficulties in that respect. They had always to be available when their ships sailed and were in as great peril as any seaman employed in the Royal Navy. They were doing as much to win the war as any seaman performing a similar function.
The representatives of the Admiralty will probably find some argument in precedent which they will bring up, or they will try to get it both ways. There are many such cases. For instance, in the eighteenth century Admiral Matthews was cashiered for breaking the line to attack the enemy and shortly afterwards Admiral Byng was shot for not doing such a thing. The Admiralty had it both ways. In this case they have not kept pace with the times. In the 1914–18 war the manning of convoy's defensive armaments had not reached the same stage of development as it did in the last war; it was not of the same importance.
When one thinks of a convoy under attack, whether it be crossing the Atlantic in the days of the "wolf-packs"—U-boats—or going to the help of the Soviet forces through the Arctic Seas where a very short immersion in the water meant death, it is fantastic that naval ratings and their comrades in the Maritime Regiment, R.A., should be excluded from the advantages of any Bill or fund to benefit those who fought at sea. Their contribution was as great as anyone's contribution. No distinction can be made between the man fighting a gun in a merchant ship and a man fighting a gun in a much less vulnerable escort vessel with the same convoy. The only difference was that the man in the merchant ship was in the target ship. It may have been loaded with something which was particularly unpleasant, from his point of view, if it was hit. It may have carried high-octane petrol or explosives, as frequently was the case. Numerous ships loaded with explosives went up on being hit by a torpedo and all on board were killed instantly. A good many naval ranks and ratings and members of the Maritime Regiment, R.A., were in this category.
Convoy commodores also come into this category. I have not the slightest hesitation in supporting their case. Generally, they were old men of distinguished service who had every excuse for staying at home and acting as, say,


air-raid wardens, or in a similar capacity. But they went to sea and many of them lost their lives in giving gallant service to their country right to the very end. They had already had a pretty raw deal, not from this Government but from its predecessor, in being given not the pension due to their own rank, but only that of a commodore. I expect that when these men went down with their ships, their last thoughts were of their widows.
They and all the humbler ranks—the signalmen and the men who manned the guns in the convoys—are to be excluded from the benefits of the Bill. Why? I have listened with attention to the Parliamentary Secretary upon this point but, so far as I know, the only argument yet adduced is that there would not be enough money, that the sums would be decreased by so much. Is that any reason for being unjust? I cannot see that it is. Is it only a matter of Admiralty convenience, that they cannot be bothered to divide up the sum any further? These men fought the convoys through, probably, the greatest dangers that ships ever faced—torpedoes, aircraft, and mines of a very much more dangerous type than ever before—yet those ships were taken through, and on them were not only the merchant seamen who were having an addition to their pay for these special risks but men who were getting far less money—those who were fighting with the guns and taking the signals. It is a gross injustice if these men are excluded for, apparently, the most technical of reasons.
Up to the present we have had no argument for taking these men out of the class which is supposed to have done most to win the war at sea. We must remember that it is not only a question of money. They will have the feeling that, for some reason, their services have been thought inferior in quality to the service of those who get money through the prize award. This is a very important matter to consider. I have seldom heard of any decision so grotesque as that which up to the present appears in the Bill, to exclude the men who, of all others, were the targets of the war at sea, the men who went to sea on what were practically potential volcanoes. That they should be excluded is an outrage. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, having had a little time since the Second

Reading to consider this matter, will realise that it is quite impossible, with any justice, to exclude these people.

Lieut-Commander Braithwaite: At the outset, may I say to the Committee that I stand to gain no financial benefit if any of these Amendments should be carried. I wish to support very strongly my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross). This group of Amendments seeks broadly to bring into the distribution naval personnel who fought under the Red Ensign as opposed to those who fought in His Majesty's ships. I will speak first about the commodores of convoys. The word suggests an exalted rank and, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, a number of these gentlemen were retired admirals—all honour to them for their splendid achievements. But very many commodores of convoys were Royal Naval Reserve officers holding the rank of commander and lieut.-commander. They were selected for those duties because they were particularly suitable, being normally employed in peace time in the Merchant Navy. They were able at once to establish friendly relations with the officers and crews of the ships in which they sailed. Let me give one example to underline my point. At the base from which I sailed, out of 32 convoy commodores 28 had never held command at all. This fact emphasises that many of them were quite junior men, whose task was particularly exacting.
Small coastal convoys, sailing from the Thames to the Tyne, through E-boat Alley, and slow convoys from the Thames to Southampton, through the Straits of Dover and Hell Fire Corner, comprised, mostly, colliers, many of them ships known as "flat-irons," which hon. Members often can see from the terrace here making their way up the river; very often the average speed of those convoys was no more than five or six knots. I accompanied them on one or two occasions and can tell the Committee that in a voyage of 56 hours the commodore invariably had to spend 53 hours on the bridge. One such officer, who had previously commanded a frigate escorting Atlantic convoys and was later appointed as a coastal commodore, told me that the latter task was an infinitely greater strain to him than when he was sailing under the White Ensign.
The same argument, of course, applies to the commodore's staff of signalmen—watch-keeping in exactly the same conditions as their comrades in the escorting destroyers or frigates—D.E.M.S. gunners, radar operators, telegraphists and the Maritime Regiment. All of them operated under exactly similar conditions as if they had been in His Majesty's ships and suffered casualties just as severe. Surely, the Government is not going to exclude them from this distribution, and surely it is not going to exclude their next-of-kin from the welcome concession announced by the Parliamentary Secretary a short time ago.
I am not going to address myself to the Parliamentary Secretary on this matter. He, after all, is the "Pinafore" Minister of the party. I am going to address myself to the Civil Lord, because I know—if I might have the hon. Gentleman's attention for a moment—that the Civil Lord has seen much active service escorting what we called the Russian convoys and will, surely, endorse the truth of what I have been saying about the men who manned the merchant ships in those Arctic hazards and the Battle of the Atlantic. Whether signalmen, gunners, telegraphists or the like, their case is on all fours with that of men serving under the White Ensign as regards the duties they performed and the perils they endured.
I should like to read to the Committee two letters which have reached me on this subject. The first is from a gentleman who was a commander, R.N.R., who acted as commodore of over 100 coastal convoys. I should be grateful if the Minister could give me his attention, for this is rather an important point. I am sure the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy) will not mind my bringing this to the attention of the hon. Gentleman. This gentleman who conducted over 100 coastal convoys, writes:
I have noted that among many of the officers and ratings ineligible for prize money are the commodores of convoys and their staffs. This unjust and deplorable ruling urges me to express my deep resentment at the principle of the treatment meted out to many officers and men worthy of more consideration. The money, or the loss of it, will mean a lot to many chaps who did a good job of work. I feel so strongly about it that I am seriously considering the return of the decorations awarded to me for convoy work.
That is what the commodore thinks about it.
Now, a leading signalman, who spent a great deal of time in exactly similar conditions. He writes:
The information regarding the Prize Bill is somewhat disturbing and, I consider, grossly unfair. You know, only too well, of the work done by the men in question. I feel it is a disgrace that these chaps should suffer by omission.
Then comes a very good point:
Many of the Convoy Signal Staffs, D.E.M.S. and M.A.A. have actually been put aboard prize ships to deliver them safely to the Allies.
What are the Admiralty going to do about that?
6.30 p.m.
May I deal with the chief reason for the resistance to this proposal? There is so little to distribute, say the Government. What on earth has become of the Socialist slogan "Fair shares for all"? What has happened to it? Whenever irksome controls are to be put on and regulations imposed, are we not told that the reason is that there must be fair shares for all and that if there is a small cake it should be divided as equally as possible? Have the Admiralty departed from this principle, or is it only for trade unionists, and our righting men are excluded from the formula? I think we ought to be told by one of the Ministers before we pass from this Amendment.
I hope the Government will yield to these unanswerable arguments. I am sure the Civil Lord will be the first to appreciate that the men who are included in this group of Amendments are in exactly the same category as those who served on His Majesty's ships—many more so, because it is possible to serve in one of His Majesty's ships, swing round a hook for months and count that as sea time. I hope the Government will reconsider this important matter and yield to our plea. If not, I hope that my hon. Friends will see that it is subjected to the acid test of a Division.

Lieut-Colonel Lipton: I quite appreciate that the Admiralty are not anxious to widen the scope of distribution unduly, because, by doing so, we might be creating even more unjustifiable anomalies than exist at present. I am even prepared to accept the argument that if we failed to make some distinction between Service personnel in the strict definition of the term and other persons


engaged in a civilian capacity, we might find ourselves in difficulties. Nevertheless, I cannot see how the exclusion of personnel of the Maritime Regiment can be justified. I must confess that I find myself in complete agreement with the hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) in this regard.
It may be argued that various categories of loyal citizens who did magnificent service during the war in their civilian capacity are unfortunate as they did not happen to be embodied, or placed in uniform, or did not happen to take the King's shilling, but, in the case of the Maritime Regiment, I do not think it an exaggeration to say that it is purely an administrative fluke that they happened to be Army personnel at all. They might just as easily have been naval personnel, with naval pay. Just because this comparatively small number of men happened to be in khaki and drew Army rates of pay when subsequently they were directly involved in naval operations, I cannot see how their exclusion can possibly be justified.
I hope my hon. Friend, even if he cannot stretch a point for the many worthy cases of civilian personnel or naval personnel described by the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut-Commander Gurney Braithwaite) as having served under the Red Ensign, will be able to reconsider these men who were actually embodied in the Armed Forces of the Crown. At least he should not let it be thrown up against him that there was a section of personnel serving in the Armed Forces of the Crown engaged in naval operations who, by virtue of their Service, were excluded. Whatever other concession my hon. Friend finds it necessary to reject, I hope he will not reject this one.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will pay attention to the speech we have just heard from the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton), one of his supporters. I strongly support what has been said about the commodores and ratings who served in the convoys and the men employed in the merchant ships as gun crews. There cannot be the slightest doubt in the mind of the Parliamentary Secretary that these men carried out far more sea service than most of the naval

officers and men, and it was under most dangerous and exacting conditions. I imagine that the reason why they have been left out is the scarcity of money.

Mr. W. Edwards: Mr. W. Edwardsindicated dissent.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: The Civil Lord shakes his head, but we are always getting back to the scarcity of money. What is the reason? Is it because the Government do not consider these officers and men were worthy of receiving prize money? Under Clause 4 it can be paid if the Admiralty wish to pay it. What is the reason they are excluded? I hope we shall be told.
If it is not scarcity of money, what is the reason? It cannot be that their services were not so great, or well understood, or well appreciated by the Admiralty. Were their services not appreciated? As has been shown by the two letters read by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite), it will cause grave discontent to the men who were engaged in this perilous work. It is a scandal that they should be excluded. I wish to reinforce what has been said about those who have lost their lives, and to remind the Government that many commodores who lost their lives only received the pay of commodores R.N.R. I presume their widows would receive nothing. That is a disgrace. That many of the widows of these officers who were carrying out very dangerous convoy work are to receive nothing, the Government think is just and right, but I think it a monstrous thing and I heartily support the Amendment, which has been so ably moved.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: I hope the Parliamentary Secretary and the Civil Lord will look at the whole question again. I especially appreciated the way in which the Amendment was moved by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross). He did so not on the niceties of legal definition, but on broad common justice. I wish to reinforce that plea for common justice with a small personal sentimental point. Several hon. Members have mentioned the Russian convoys. I had an experience with those convoys and remember one occasion when, seven or eight days out, our destroyer was sent alongside a merchant packet to pick up a couple of men who had been hit by tracers. We took them aboard and transferred them to the


cruiser. I had the handling of the stretchers on which they laid. Both belonged to the Maritime Regiment. One had a tracer through his stomach and died about four hours later and the other lived, but without either of his hands.
If there were no other reasons, I should never give my vote in this House against the man who lived or the dependants of the man who died receiving some slight recognition of the dangers they ran. They did run much bigger dangers than they would have run in many vessels of the Royal Navy. Many of us have seen those vessels hit and vanish in smoke. It would be scandalous if we were to exclude the men who ran that danger and gave such great service from the rewards, such as they are, which are being given in this Bill to others who include some who spent months swinging round a buoy in a battle wagon.

Captain Marsden: We have heard from both sides of the Committee support for this Amendment by Members who have had great experience of this subject. To no one is it closer than it is to me. If we do not concede to these men what is their due, they will feel that the Admiralty has broken faith with them. The Admiralty has broken faith with them before, but I am afraid that they will also think that I have broken faith with them. At the beginning of the D.E.M.S. we had to persuade these men that they were in the Royal Navy whether they were serving in a small ship or in the flagship of the Commander-in-Chief. Had they been in the latter, they would have been much more comfortable and safer. They went in any ship to which they were sent. My remarks cover the commodores of convoys and their staffs and the Maritime Regiment. We were all in it together. We had to get these men, train them, put enthusiasm and esprit de corps into them. Generally speaking, that was done by quite junior officers at the Admiralty, commanders with the acting rank of captain. I wonder whether the D.E.M.S. are left out because they have no senior officers at the Admiralty to plead their case?
We have heard of the Russian convoys. Any bookmaker in the country would have given odds of five to one against any of these men coming out alive and on the majority of their ships being sunk. These men went to sea. They never

quailed at their tasks. We had little East Coast convoys. So tense was the action, so short were we of men, that we actually had a shuttle service. Men had to be taken off a ship at Southend and transferred to another one to go as far as Southampton and back. Guns were so short that in the case of their small antiaircraft guns the men took them with them. They were practically always under fire.
Now we are asked to say that they must not have their share of the prize money. Yet they were under the Naval Discipline Act and borne on the ship's books on H.M.S. President III. But because they were not sent in what is described as an offensive ship but only in a defensive ship, they are to get no prize money. The enemy were not after the offensive ships; they were the one type which they wished to avoid. They were chasing after the defensive ships. They were the whole target and object at which the enemy were aiming, and we are asked to exclude the men we are talking about.
6.45 p.m.
Let me quote another example which remains vivid in my mind—Malta, which was given the George Cross, Malta which was just on the verge of collapse and was saved by the Merchant Navy plus the D.E.M.S. I remember that one last oil tanker. If she had not got there, Malta would probably have surrendered. I remember her going in, badly hit, down by the bows and just getting in. An award was made to the captain and I believe the chief officer got something. Malta got the George Cross; the D.E.M.S. ratings nothing at all. Now is our chance, and we are missing it.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will get out of his head any idea that it is the amount of money concerned in which these men are interested. That has nothing to do with it; it is the recognition which they want. They were part of the Royal Navy and did their job, and they did it well. So far as I know, the total amount of money involved would be in the neighbourhood of £300,000. The D.E.M.S.—the figures can be checked—totalled about 37,000 and the Maritime Regiment about 10,000. If they received £6, £5, £4 or £3 they would not care a bit. They would be glad not for the money but for the recognition given to them for their services.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will accede to the demand which has been made equally from both sides of the Committee. We have already been told that the next-of-kin or the legatees of those killed in action in the Regular Navy and who are qualified, will receive their share. It is within the competence of the Admiralty to make this award under the terms of the Proclamation, so if the Parliamentary Secretary cannot make a declaration on that point now, I hope he will do so at a later date. I have always put my faith in the Civil Lord. He comes from the Navy; he comes from the lower deck. I am indeed sorry to think that he is slipping. Three years ago he had the broad good commonsense of the lower deck, which I fear is now being gradually submerged by all the jargon and routine of the Civil Service. If the Civil Lord had heard the eulogies upon his appointment by high officers of the Navy when he was first appointed he would have blushed, that is, if a first-class stoker can ever blush—it has never yet been thoroughly explored.
But seriously, and I am very serious, I feel more deeply about this subject than I have felt about any subject upon which I have spoken in this House. These are the men I know and with whom I have served; these are the men I have trained. If the Admiralty let them down now I shall be very unhappy.

Mr. Keenan: I rose because, although I feel that the eulogies of the Navy are well justified, and I take not the slightest exception to what has been said about the personnel of the Service—it is very true that too much cannot be said—I feel that the Merchant Navy has been forgotten in this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I take exception to the observation made by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) that the Merchant Navy were paid for the danger. It is principally because of that remark that I have risen. I realise that in matters like this it is difficult to know where to start and end, but I would say that every member of the Merchant Navy is entitled to consideration. They all shared the dangers. As one who comes from Liverpool, and who was concerned with the subject, and who saw many of the naval personnel in the convoys, I know a little about the

matter. I would remind the Committee that the Merchant Navy were not paid——

The Chairman: I am afraid the hon. Members is out of Order. The members of the Merchant Navy are not concerned.

Mr. Keenan: I was referring, Major Milner, to the remark of the hon. Member for Londonderry that the men for whom he was now pleading were only paid the ordinary nominal Service rates and that they shared the dangers in Merchant Navy ships with men who were paid danger money. The danger money of £10 which those men got was only the equivalent of wages, and they were never really paid for the risks they undertook.

Commander Maitland: The point which the hon. Gentleman for Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan) has raised can be dealt with as a fact. I can only say that there was a feeling of enormous admiration for the men of the Merchant Navy, but one realised that they were paid a great deal more than we were. I wish to make one point. It seems to me that something turns here on whether a man is in an offensively armed ship or a defensively armed ship, and I am wondering if I can help by making the following suggestion to the Parliamentary Secretary. He and the Committee know that the definition of a defensively armed merchant ship is most carefully worked out and thought out in International Law.
One of the curious factors which make a ship a defensively armed merchant ship, is that she must have no gun which fires before the beam. That is a fact, and at the beginning of the war when we re-equipped merchant ships, we had to equip them for defensive purposes and they were not allowed to have a gun which fired before the beam. As the war went on, with aircraft attacks and various other attacks, those restrictions, as the hon. Gentleman knows, went by the board. I believe that in International Law they were offensively armed ships. If that could be upheld, the whole difficulty would be solved and these men might be paid like anybody else.

Mr. Levy: I should like very briefly to add my support to this group of Amendments. It does seem to me that anybody who has been listening to this discussion must feel that the whole


weight of logic, sentiment and ordinary rough, decent justice is in favour of including these men. I do not wish to add to the list of personal illustrations, but one of the convoy routes which the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) mentioned was one on which, as it happened, I myself served in a very humble capacity. As he spoke, it went through my mind that it was surely quite fantastic, that I, as an ordinary seaman in the convoy, should be entitled, under this Bill, to receive a sum and an award to which the commodore of the convoy would not be entitled.
I am at a loss to anticipate exactly what answer my hon. Friend may give and what arguments he may advance. It may be that the principle which has decided him is that these men when they joined had no particular expectation of prize money. That may be the dividing line. The matter is a very difficult and arguable one. The whole of this subject is one of great complexity and intricacy of detail and that is why I, personally, am sorry he could not find it possible to accept the Amendment for a Select Committee. But as he has not done so, may I suggest that he may have some obligation to look upon these Amendments with particular sympathy and realise that in default of a Select Committee, it must be open to this House to discuss very fully and thoroughly Amendments of this kind.

Mr. Dugdale: It would be as well if at the outset I made clear the reasons which have made the Admiralty think that it may be better if these men were excluded. It is not for some of the reasons which have been adduced by hon. Members. There is no question as to their bravery. No one says for a moment that these men are not brave. But there are other men, equally brave, who do not get this award. Let me give as one example a naval airman who may be shore based at a naval air station, and may do very gallant work indeed. But he is shore based, and does not get it. Another case is that of the man, also in a shore establishment, engaged in bomb disposal work. Those people are very brave indeed. It is not suggested that this particular class we are considering, the Maritime Regiment and the D.E.M.S., are any braver. It

is not questioned that they have not undergone great strain and have been exceedingly brave.
With regard to the gentleman who wrote to the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) and who said he would return his medals if he did not get this award, I hope that this explanation will at least reassure him that we are not in any way maintaining that his action is not the bravest and finest action. The hon. and gallant Member for Holderness also raised the question of one of the men who had written to him and said that he had been put on board a prize ship. Here I come to the main point, which is that that man did not capture the ship. He was not in any way in a position in which he could, and the dividing line we have made is that the people entitled to the award shall be in a ship of war, which is a ship which might be supposed to be able to capture other ships.
I agree that in arguments of this nature it is difficult to maintain that every possible ship of war might have captured another ship. Some ships of war might not have been anywhere near the scene. But the theory is that a ship of war can capture another ship and a merchant ship cannot, and that people in a ship of war are, therefore, entitled to the prize money.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Vice-Admiral Taylorrose——

Mr. Dugdale: I would ask that I might continue. The hon. and gallant Member has already spoken.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: May I ask——

Mr. Dugdale: I would like to continue my argument. Another question that was raised by hon. Members was, is it because there is too little money in the "kitty? "I would say definitely that it is not. The reason is the one I have given—that these men were not in ships of war. That is the dividing line that has been taken.
Having said that I will add this, and I think it is a point that should interest hon. Members who have maintained that a Select Committee is the best place for discussing this matter. I have listened to the arguments put forward from all quarters of the Committee and I realise that there is considerable feeling on this


matter. I can see the force of that feeling. I have given the reasons which have persuaded the Admiralty that in fact our division was the best division—ships of war, or not ships of war. But I can see that there is a case on the other side. That being so I am perfectly prepared, while I cannot accept the Amendments as they stand, to consult my noble Friend and see whether it is possible to have an Amendment with this object in view introduced in another place. [HON. MEMBERS: "On Report stage."] The Report stage comes tonight and I think it would be much more convenient if the Amendment could be brought in, not on Report stage, but in another place. I think hon. Members will agree that that is a very reasonable suggestion which makes a very considerable concession.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The hon. Gentleman has said, in view of the expressions of opinion from all parts of the Committee, that he will ask his noble Friend to consider this matter. That we welcome as an invitation, but it leaves us in this position. We in this Committee are being asked to pass this Measure without these categories being included. I do not think that we in this House of Commons, in Committee, would be right to pass this Bill, and give up the power of exercising further influence upon the hon. Gentleman, merely upon the assurance that he will ask his noble Friend to consider this matter. I do not wish to put him in a difficulty in view of what he has said, but, at the same time, I think we ought to know what is the position before we pass from this point, or the Bill leaves this House. Some of us feel very strongly upon this matter and would not rest content merely with an assurance of that kind. I understand that if time permits we are to take the Report stage, if there is one, and the Third Reading of this Bill to-day.
7.0 p.m.
It might be convenient to adjourn this Committee stage until we know where we stand. The Parliamentary Secretary has really said nothing more than that he will ask his noble Friend to reconsider the matter. The answer of his noble Friend may be that he will not do anything about it, in which case we shall have given up all the power we have to do something about it. I was interested by the hon. Gentleman's argu-

ment. It seemed to be remarkably thin in character. He said there was no question of bravery, and then he sought to compare the bravery of these individuals with the bravery of those serving on land. No one has sought to distinguish on the grounds of bravery between those entitled to receive prize money and those who are not. The fact is that here we have people in the Navy serving afloat under the Naval Discipline Act and one man gets his prize money because he is sent to a warship and the other is deprived of it because he is sent to a merchant vessel.
The hon. Gentleman's answer to the powerful speeches made from both sides of the Committee was most unsatisfactory. He told us today that it was not merely on financial grounds that this Amendment was opposed. But on Second Reading the Civil Lord said:
Because of the small amount of money at our disposal we had to lay down careful regulations concerning the qualifications for prize money.
In the same paragraph he dealt with D.E.M.S. and the Maritime Regiment. That was the basis——

Mr. W. Edwards: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to explain that the first sentence to which he has referred dealt with the qualifying period of six months and not with the question of the D.E.M.S.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I would willingly read out the whole paragraph but those who wish to refer to it can find it in Column 1935 in HANSARD. Then the hon. Gentleman said:
There are many others outside the categories laid down in the Bill who could be added, besides the D.E.M.S. and the Maritime Regiment.
He was questioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) and by me, and finally he said:
There are many civilian bodies, attached to the Navy, which carried out certain work during the war … Those connected with salvage, boom, wreck dispersal and wireless work.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1948; Vol. 457, c. 1935.]
No one has suggested that those civilians are at all in the same position as naval ratings in the Navy serving on merchant ships. It would be interesting to know—and surely the hon. Gentleman could tell us—what would be the financial cost involved. How much bigger would the


Prize Fund have to be to meet the claims of all these individuals? Putting it another way, how much would the effect of their inclusion reduce the amounts receivable by those who are qualified? I do not believe that the sum would be large. If the hon. Gentleman could only think again, I believe that that sum could be secured from other sources without diminishing the scales already proposed.
I come back to the point on which I started. I suggest that we cannot leave this matter where it stands at present. It is not enough on a serious matter of this sort, with the interests of so many affected, merely to say, "I will ask my noble Friend and I hope that perhaps something may be possible to be done in another place." I do not wish to hold up the proceedings, but I suggest that the hon. Gentleman might think out some way whereby, perhaps at a later stage, we could come back to this Clause and he could give some more definite information upon it.

Mr. Dugdale: I really think that I have made a most reasonable suggestion. I am sure that my hon. Friends will realise that when I say that I will ask my noble Friend to consider, in the light of the views expressed in this Committee, whether it is not desirable for an Amendment to be introduced in another place to include these men, I am making a plain statement. It means exactly what it says. I think that hon. Members, knowing that my noble Friend has himself served in this House for many years, and knowing that he appreciates fully what weight to give to the opinion of hon. Members, will be confident that he will take that into account. I have no doubt that in due course the result will be what hon. Members have requested. I think that will undoubtedly be so, but it is obviously impossible for me to commit my noble Friend from this Box. In the circumstances, I have done the best that can be done. I have agreed that I shall ask my noble Friend to introduce this Amendment. I know that my hon. Friend the Civil Lord will support me in what I have said.

Mr. Bracken: The Parliamentary Secretary has told us that he has no doubt whatever that the point of view expressed by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) and several other Members of his party, reinforced by the

points of view expressed by my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee, will be acceptable to the First Lord. I am very glad to hear that he has no doubt about it.

Mr. Dugdale: I think the word I used was "undoubtedly."

Mr. Bracken: Really, this is a quibble—the difference between, "I have no doubt" and "undoubtedly." Sometimes when I look at the hon. Gentleman I wish that he would take that enamelled sneer off his face and remember the sacrifices—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] Not a bit. I will not withdraw anything. I wish he would remember the sacrifices made by the seamen who helped to save him in the war.

Mr. Levy: While the right hon. Gentleman is taking, on so little provocation and so unaccustomedly, such a high moral tone, he might perhaps at the same time think it wise to fulfil the rest of the quotation that he made from my hon. Friend who went on specifically to say that he was not in a position to commit his noble Friend.

Mr. Bracken: That is our dilemma. The Parliamentary Secretary says, "I have no doubt that he will accept the point of view put forward by bon. Gentlemen on both sides of this Committee." A sentence or two later he tells us that he cannot commit the Admiralty. This is an impossible situation. On the one hand, he says that he has no doubt that our wishes will be fulfilled, and later he qualifies and destroys the validity of that statement by saying that he cannot commit the Admiralty. How can he expect us to accept his strange reassurances? The hon. Gentleman is trying to placate his supporters behind him. He says to them that he has no doubt that he can accept their point of view but, on being questioned from this side of the Committee, he says that he cannot commit the Admiralty. He has given us no assurance at all.
If the hon. Gentleman cannot give us a clear statement of where he stands—and I suggest that the Civil Lord would be a much better personage in every way to answer us—if he cannot give us a clear answer, we cannot allow this issue to pass on this double-barrelled assurance that,


on the one hand, the Parliamentary Secretary can give us what we want and, on the other hand, that he is not in a position to fulfil our request without consulting with the First Lord. If we cannot get anything better than that, we shall certainly vote against this Clause.

Lieut. - Commander Braithwaite: I should like to make one appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary. [Interruption.] I am not addressing the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Mellish). He can reserve himself for "The Week in Westminster." The hon. Gentleman has told us—and we were very glad to hear him say it—that this matter is now to be reconsidered and that he will place it before his noble Friend. He appeared to take some simple comfort from the fact that noble Lords in another place would be able to put this matter right. I suggest to the Government that this is essentially a House of Commons job, and that this matter should be put right by this House. I suggest that it can be done on the Report stage of this Bill. All that the hon. Gentleman has to do is to postpone the Report stage and the Third Reading for a week—and he has been long enough in bringing the Bill in—while the matter is put right in the House of Commons.
The hon. Gentleman has told us that he cannot guarantee that his noble Friend will agree to what has been suggested. We are all elected people, responsible to our constituents, and, for my own part, I am not prepared to leave this question to another place, without going on record as having stated that this matter is important and ought to be brought within the ambit of prize money. After all, the shadows of a General Election are slowly approaching, and all hon. Members are likely to be questioned upon this point. If the Socialist Government says, "We would not do it, but the House of Lords will put it right," all well and good, but I should prefer the House of Commons to do it.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: This really is a matter on which the Committee is in some difficulty. In a matter as grave as this, it is a big decision to take. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will agree. I do not think it is right that we should allow three stages of this Bill to go through, before we see

how the Bill is going to be amended. It is not a drafting matter at all. What is proposed by the Government is that we should allow the Committee stage, the Report stage, and the Third Reading to go through, and then wait to see what is done in another place and considering Amendments when they come to us from another place.
If this was a perfectly simple matter, there might be something to be said for that. I do not think it is quite so simple, and I suggest that the Financial Secretary should consider the matter from the procedural point of view, quite irrespective of the merits of the Bill itself. It is not that anybody wants to delay the consideration of the necessary Amendments by another place; all of us would wish to accelerate it. To allow the three stages of this Bill to go through simply on an undertaking that something is to be done in another place, does not seem to me to be wise or in accordance with the best practice and procedure of this House.

The Chairman: I do not think we can have a long discussion of this nature. We must deal with the Bill as it stands.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I was endeavouring to deal with the Bill as it stands, and I was desirous of throwing a little oil on the troubled waters by making a further suggestion. The position is that this House is being asked to pass all stages of this Bill today. I see that the Patronage Secretary is here, and, if he could say that the Report stage of the Bill can be taken at another time, so that the hon. Gentleman can table his Amendment, we should have the matter resolved beyond doubt. We could pass from it today without any further discussion upon it, since there is plenty of business for this Committee to deal with today. I suggest that this is a way out of the difficulty, and I leave it to the hon. Gentleman whether he accepts the suggestion or not. If he does not, we shall then see quite clearly what is meant by his undertaking.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Whiteley): Personally, I do not see the difficulty that is supposed to have arisen. The Parliamentary Secretary has made a very clear statement, and I think the Committee ought to appreciate the position which he has put so clearly. On the other point, I do not see that it arises at all. This Business was


announced last Thursday, and my hon. Friend has promised that he will consult his noble Friend in another place with a view to putting down an Amendment to meet the wishes of the Committee. I think the Committee ought to accept that.

Commander Noble: May I ask why it is necessary to go through the remaining stages of this Bill on the same day as the Committee stage? It would seem that, if the Report stage is not to be taken, it is not very much good trying to amend the Bill in Committee. All these Amendments might well have been accepted, but where would we have been then?

7.15 p.m.

Sir R. Ross: I am very anxious to be able to feel that I can withdraw the Amendment with complete assurance, but I do look upon this as a serious matter. I have probably got a good deal more respect for another place than some hon. Members opposite, but this is so essentially a House of Commons matter that it ought to be settled here. I wonder whether the Government cannot reconsider the suggestion to take the Report stage on another day, because the practice of taking all stages of a Bill on one day has generally been associated with Bills on which there has been very little contention. Although the general prin-

ciple of this Bill has been accepted by all, there have been many matters of acute non-party contention and discussion on what is the best thing to be done.

We have now come to one of the most important features of the whole Bill, and I make an appeal to the Patronage Secretary. Every Patronage Secretary I have ever known since I have been in this House—and that is now quite a long time—has always been extremely reluctant to upset the pattern for weeks or months ahead, but I do not think this suggestion would upset it very much. I think the Report stage and Third Reading, which should be very short, should be taken on (another occasion, and I believe that that is really the proper way for the machinery of Parliament to function. Previously, when we have agreed to taking three stages of a Bill on one day, it has been because it has not been contentious, but this is not that kind of a Bill. Unless it is possible for the Patronage Secretary to make that concession that we should take the Report stage on another day, I do not think it would be proper for me to withdraw the Amendment, although I am very anxious to do so.

Question put, "That the word and stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 189; Noes, 84.

Division No. 14.]
AYES
[7.19 p.m.


Albu, A. H.
Cocks, F. S.
Guy, W. H.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Coldrick, W.
Hale, Leslie


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Collick, P.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.


Alpass, J. H.
Collins, V. J.
Harnison, J.


Attewell, H. C.
Colman, Miss G. M.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)


Ayles, W. H.
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Cove, W. G.
Hobson, C. R.


Bacon, Miss A.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Holman, P.


Balfour, A.
Daggar, G.
Horabin, T. L.


Barstow, P. G.
Daines, P.
Hoy, J.


Barton, C.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)


Battley, J. R.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Deer, G.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)


Benson, G.
Diamond, J.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)


Berry, H.
Dodds, N. N.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)


Beswick, F.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Binns, J.
Dumpleton, C. W.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)


Blackburn, A. R.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Jenkins, R. H.


Blyton, W. R.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)


Bottomley, A. G.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Ewart, R.
Keenan, W.


Bramall, E. A.
Fernyhough, E.
King, E. M.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Follick, M.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Foot, M. M.
Kinley, J.


Brown, George (Belper)
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Levy, B. W.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Gibbins, J.
Lindgren, G. S.


Burden, T. W.
Gibson, C. W.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Longden, F.


Chater, D.
Grey, C. F.
Lyne, A. W.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Griffiths,. D. (Rather Valley)
McAdam, W.


Cobb, F. A.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Lianelly)
McEntee, V. La T.




McGhee, H. G.
Perrins, W.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Mack, J. D.
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Popplewell, E.
Thurtle, Ernest


McLeavy, F.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Titterington, M. F.


MacPherson, M. (Stirting)
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Tolley, L.


Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Proctor, W. T.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Pursey, Comdr. H.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Ranger, J.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Marquand, H. A.
Rees-Williams, D. R.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Mayhew, C. P.
Reeves, J.
Viant, S. P.


Mellish, R. J.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Walkden, E.


Messer, F.
Richards, R.
Walker, G. H.


Middleton, Mrs. L.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Mitchison, G. R.
Robens, A.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Monslow, W.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Warbey, W. N.


Moody, A. S.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Sargood, R.
Weitzman, D.


Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Segal, Dr. S.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Moyle, A.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Naylor, T. E.
Sharp, Granville
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Neal, H. (Claycross)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Wilkins, W. A.


Oliver, G. H.
Simmons, C. J.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Orbach, M.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Williams, R. W. (Wigan)


Paget, R. T.
Skinnard, F. W.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Willis, E.


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Wise, Major F. J.


Palmer, A. M. F.
Snow, J. W.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Parker, J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Yates, V. F.


Parkin, B. T.
Sylvester, G. O.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Zilliacus, K.


Paton, J. (Norwich)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)



Pearson, A.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Peart, T. F.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Mr. Collindridge and




Mr. Richard Adams.




NOES


Baldwin, A. E.
Crimston, R. V.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.


Birch, Nigel
Head, Brig. A. H.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Pitman, I. J.


Bossom, A. C.
Hope, Lord J.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Bowen, R.
Howard, Hon. A.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Bower, N.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Renton, D.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Keeling, E. H.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Lambert, Hon. G.
Ropner, Col. L.


Braithwaite, Lt-Comdr. J. G.
Langford-Holt, J.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Lipson. D. L.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Shepherd. W. S. (Bucklow)


Byers, Frank
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Low, A. R. W.
Smithers, Sir W.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Lucas-Tooth Sir H.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col O. E.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Studholme, H. G.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Sutcliffe, H.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Digby, S. W.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n,[...] S.)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Donner, P. W.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Drayson, G. B.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Drewe, C.
Marples, A. E.
Touche, G. C.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Marsden, Capt. A.
Walker-Smith, D.


Duthie, W. S.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Medlicott, Brigadier F.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)



Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gammans, L. D.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Commander Agnew and




Colonel Wheatley.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 5 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 8.—(Abolition of future prize money, and of prize bounty.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: We shall oppose the inclusion of this Clause. We have

heard no new arguments this evening in support of the extinction of the Royal Prerogative to grant prize money or prize bounty. During the Second Reading Debate, the Government said that both were anachronisms today. I admit that conditions of modern warfare are different from those of previous wars, but I repeat the point which I made on the Second Reading that none can foresee the circumstances next time if, unfortunately, war should come again. Therefore, it


seems to us on this side of the Committee to be a very foolish step to abolish prize money and prize bounty at the present time, and a deplorable step to take away from His Majesty the prerogative right of making this grant. The onus is upon the Government to show why these steps should be taken, and it is not enough for them merely to say that they are anachronistic, whatever the Government may mean by that particularly ugly word.
In the Second Reading Debate, the Parliamentary Secretary advanced no reason in the small paragraph which he devoted to the subject, and the Civil Lord added nothing when he wound up. We are prepared to discuss the abolition on the merits of the case, but, so far, in our opinion, no case has been presented. I agree that today there may no longer be a case for making individual grants of prize bounty to the men actually engaged in the action for which bounty would be payable, but there is no reason whatever why bounty should not be made the subject of a general grant in the same way as the distribution of prize money was changed in the 1914–18 war.
As I said on Second Reading, there was no hint of any change in the policy of granting prize bounty in the last war until the Minister of Defence made a statement in answer to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) in December, 1945. It is one of the many complaints that we have against this Bill that no previous warning was ever given to the Royal Navy at an earlier date. I would remind the Parliamentary Secretary that in the Second Reading Debate he justified the payment of prize money for this war on the ground that the men had been expecting it, and rightly expecting it. If this reason justifies the grant of prize money, it equally justifies the grant of prize bounty.
In the Second Reading Debate, it seemed to us that the representatives of the Admiralty were not altogether clear as to the difference between prize money and prize bounty. I must remind the Civil Lord that in winding up the Debate he said:
I am a loser as a result of the policy of the Government in abolishing the prize bounty. I happened to serve on a German cargo vessel

which during the war brought in 8,000 tons of grain. If prize bounty had been paid, I would have received something on that account"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th November, 1948; Vol. 457, c. 1934.]
But a captured merchant vessel does not qualify for bounty. Bounty is only paid in respect of enemy warships destroyed or surrendered.
7.30 p.m.
It is a very alarming state of affairs when a Minister directly concerned with abolishing an age-old tradition at this time should not be absolutely clear as to exactly what it is that is being abolished. We were left in complete ignorance during the Second Reading as to how much this prize bounty would have amounted in respect of the last war. Do the Government intend to tell us today what that amount is? It is an answer which I think the officers and men of the Royal Navy would be interested to hear. We understand that the total amount will not be large, but it would make a very welcome addition to this very small Prize Fund. This also does not appear to be a matter for a decision by His Majesty's Government alone. It is no part of their duty to advise His Majesty in the exercise of His Royal Prerogative in respect of the peoples of His Majesty's Dominions. The Government have so far given no indications at all of any discussion——

The Chairman: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I gather that he is arguing that there should be a bounty in respect of the recent war.

Mr. Thomas: Yes, Sir.

The Chairman: This Clause, however, does not seem to deal with that matter. The Clause says that the Droits of Admiralty shall cease to be exercisable in respect of any future war. It would not, therefore, appear appropriate for the hon. Gentleman to argue in respect of the recent war. Indeed, I do not know any place in the Bill where that can be done.

Mr. Thomas: Surely, with respect, until this Clause is passed, the abolition of bounty in the last war does come in for discussion under Subsection (2). Surely, under Subsection (2) I am within my rights to argue that point?

The Chairman: I understand that the hon. Gentleman is arguing that the prerogative right shall be exercisable In fact, it has not been exercised and it is


not proposed that it shall be exercised in future.

Mr. Thomas: Until this Clause is passed am I not in Order to argue that point?

The Chairman: I am afraid not.

Mr. Thomas: I bow of course to your Ruling, Major Milner. Before the moving of the Second Reading of the Bill the Chancellor of the Exchequer came to the House and informed us that His Majesty, having been informed of the contents of the Bill, had been graciously pleased to place the rights and the privileges of the Crown at the disposal of Parliament. With regard to this particular grant, we see no reason whatsoever for curtailing the Royal Prerogative by Act of Parliament. Even if, after a future war, it is decided not to grant either prize money or prize bounty, it is competent, surely, for the Government then to advise His Majesty not to make the grant. There is no need for them to have a statute in order to tender this advice. The matter can quite well be left to be decided as the circumstances demand in future. I should like to impress upon the Government that amongst the many objections which we have——

The Chairman: Will the hon. Gentleman forgive me? I have reconsidered the point he raised a short time ago, and I think he may be right in arguing under Subsection (2) that the prerogative right to grant prize bounty may, in fact, be exercised with regard to the recent war. The first part of the Clause appears to say that it shall not be exercisable in respect of any future war, and the second part of the Clause seems to indicate that it shall cease to be exercisable henceforth. That would appear to leave an opportunity for argument that it might or might not be exercised in respect of the recent war.

Mr. Thomas: I am most grateful to you, Major Milner. I hoped that under Subsection (2) you might, on reflection, consider that it was possible to continue this discussion. When I broke off, I was pointing out that this abolition of prize bounty does not seem to be a decision of His Majesty's Government alone. It is no part of their duty to advise His

Majesty in the exercise of His Royal Prerogative in respect of the people of His Majesty's Dominions. I was asking why the Government have given no indication of any discussion with the Dominions on this matter. The House would like to know whether discussions have been held, or even if prize money has been abolished so far as the Dominions are concerned.
As to the last war, we had hoped to move an Amendment, but it was not accepted, owing to the fact that a Financial Resolution would be needed. I would point out that I felt that the prerogative right existed for the granting of prize money under the 1864 Act, and that this was confirmed by the 1918 Act, when the provision for the distribution of prize money was made, and no Financial Resolution was moved on that occasion. I felt, with respect, that what was unnecessary then must surely be unnecessary now. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) and my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) proposed that the bounty money should be added to prize funds, and they were told by the Civil Lord that this could not be done. He gave us, however, no reason for this statement, and I would remind the Government that while this Bill may abolish the Royal Prerogative, it is not yet passed and we still hope it will not be passed in its present form. Surely there should be no arbitrary ruling by Ministers or by anybody else on this matter before the Bill is actually passed.
I now return to what I was saying just before you kindly told me, Major Milner, that I might continue with this discussion of the abolition of bounty in respect of the last war. I was stating that we on this side of the Committee saw no reason whatsoever why there should be any curtailing of the Royal Prerogative by Act of Parliament, and I should like to conclude by impressing upon the Government that of all our many grave objections to this Bill, the abolition of this Royal Prerogative is the greatest.

Captain Marsden: I hope this Clause will not be passed. Why should we do away with prize money just because the Admiralty have got themselves into a mess in administering it? The position is that prize money is not money which is


deducted from the Exchequer. It is money which is received from ships condemned in a prize court. The original prize court, as far as I know, was set up in 1649—about 300 years ago—and it was not set up primarily for the purpose of prize money but to protect merchant ships, so that if any ship was captured on the high seas she was taken to the prize courts and then condemned as lawful prize under the international rules of war as they then existed.
From the proceeds of this fund, half went to the actual ships' companies who had captured the ship, and half went to the Treasury or the Admiralty to disburse for pensions and other charitable awards to Service men. I do not see any reason why a future Prize Fund should not be used for that same purpose. This Clause seeks to abolish any such thing. When the next war comes—and pray God it will not—we may be certain that the Navy are going to capture a few ships. Therefore, a fund will immediately be created. If this Clause goes through it means that the proceeds will go direct to the Exchequer.
I oppose this Clause. It is ridiculous at this stage to commit ourselves in what we are going to do with prizes captured in some possible future war. Let that period take care of itself. If there is any fear that the men are going to be deceived in any way, the Admiralty can easily circulate a paragraph in Fleet Orders to the effect that in future no man can rely on getting prize money. That is simple enough; they will know where they are then. That is what I recommend, in view of the argument which we have heard today to the effect that the lump sums in the Prize Fund should be distributed to charities. Why should not the Merchant Service get some of this money—for example, organisations like the Shipwrecked Mariners' Society who look after men whose ships have been torpedoed, bombed and wrecked at sea? There would be a useful sum to distribute to these naval charities for officers and their dependants. There is a precedent in 1649, and also today in the way the Air Force intend to distribute the amount which they receive. To say there will never be any distribution and that all the money is going into the Exchequer is something which I personally must oppose.
The second part of the Bill is the abolition of prize bounty. Now this is really the easiest thing to compute. The Admiralty have the figures and at almost a few minutes' notice could give the total number of enemy ships at war which were sunk or captured, and the crews concerned. They must have it tabulated somewhere. They can say, "£5 a head for these crews"—and there is the prize bounty straight away. As soon as the Bill goes through prize bounty will be abolished, but there is nothing, so far as I know, to stop any prize agent today putting in a claim for this prize bounty on behalf of the people he represents. It is not a vast amount and for that reason one does not want to stress the matter too strongly. To do away at this moment with a thing which may never happen—or in any case may happen years ahead—is something with which I cannot agree, and if that provision remains in the Clause, I must oppose the Clause.

Commander Pursey: It might be of advantage at this late stage if we could clear up some of the misunderstandings about prize bounty and prize money which exist on the other side of the Committee. If the hon. and gallant Member for Chertsey (Captain Marsden) had referred to King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions, Article 895, paragraph 3, he would have found that it says:
Prize Bounty for the capture or destruction of enemy armed vessels may only be claimed when the Crown has declared its intention to grant this award in respect of any particular war.
That is an extract from the Naval Prize Act.
In the Bill which we have before us we find the statement that:
no grant of prize bounty in respect of operations during the late war has been made or is contemplated.
I will deal with prize money later, but the arguments which have been advanced by the Opposition about prize bounty and prize money are nonsense. Here it is clearly stated in the Regulations that unless a statement is made there is no prize bounty. Moreover, hon. Members on the other side said they were prepared to see prize bounty go. Prize bounty has to come out of the Exchequer. It is in a different category altogether from prize money and when it was argued on Second Reading, as some hon. Members argued today, that prize bounty should be added


to prize money, it may as well be argued that we should add old age pensions to prize money because, as in that case, there is no connection between the two whatsoever.

Mr. Bracken: Nonsense.

Commander Pursey: if the right hon. Gentleman wants to interrupt I shall be prepared to give way.

Mr. Bracken: I am not interrupting but merely putting the point that there is often a connection between prize money and old age pensions.

7.45 p.m.

Commander Pursey: I do not want to labour this point at this time of the day. So far as prize bounty is concerned, it finished with the last war. Nothing has been said about it in connection with this war and, therefore, it does not exist. All we are concerned with tonight is the decision that it will finish so far as the Royal Prerogative is concerned. So much for prize bounty.
Turning now to prize money and again quoting King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions—and these are the Orders by which the Navy is run. It is no good hon. and gallant Members opposite laughing, because it is perfectly obvious that if they had referred to these Regulations they would not have advanced the arguments they have advanced. Article 894, headed "Right or Claim to Proceeds," says:
The officers and crews of His Majesty's ships have no right or claim to the proceeds of Prize of War, except as may from time to time be granted by the Crown.
The Navy on this occasion expected prize money and prize money is being granted. But it is quite nonsense to argue, when we consider the question of making an announcement that it should not be granted in the future, that prize bounty and prize money had been looked upon as emoluments which automatically were granted to the officers and men serving in the Navy. When I joined the Navy 40 years ago no one then said anything about prize money or prize bounty, and nobody in the last half century or more has ever been told that prize bounty and prize money are part of the emoluments of the Navy. [Interruption.] The running commentary going on from the other side does not detract from the facts. If you do not

know these facts, you might at least listen and improve your knowledge on the subject.

The Chairman: It would appear that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is unaware that he is referring to me.

Commander Pursey: I apologise, with all due respect, Sir, for using the word "you." Hon. Members opposite instead of plugging a running commentary might at least take the opportunity of improving their education about prize money and prize bounty.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: But even the Civil Lord did not know when he wound up in the Second Reading Debate, because I had to point out his mistake.

Commander Pursey: It is not for me to say what the Civil Lord said. It is obvious to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas) what happened there, and it is not for me to say. On the Second Reading Debate I said there had been a lot of arrant nonsense talked and in that connection I want to make it quite clear that I am excluding the Amendments about increasing the number of individuals—officers and men—to be brought into the various categories. That is not the subject of my argument.
The arguments which have been put forward from the other side about prize money and prize bounty are far removed from the facts. Prize bounty finished after the first war and prize money will finish with this war. Anyone reading the Debate in this House, or hearing it, would have one comment to make: the main point which arose from the Debate was that prize money should be abolished because we have now reached a stage where it is impossible to distribute it fairly. The money has been reduced. In addition to the Navy receiving awards the Royal Air Force have been included and there is a good case for the Army also sharing in it. Consequently, the decision of the Government is the right one.
Moreover, I say this to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite: if a Conservative Government had been in power, the Admiralty would have brought in a similar Bill. It is quite on the cards that the hon. Member who led for the Opposition during this Bill—the hon.


Member for Hereford—would have been the person to introduce practically a similar Bill, one to do precisely the same things as those now proposed.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: There is nothing more fascinating than when hon. Members opposite, and particularly the hon. and gallant Member for East Hull (Commander Pursey), start to reconstruct the next Conservative Government. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas) will be the first to rejoice that he has been appointed First Lord of the Admiralty. I would assure the hon. and gallant Member for East Hull that from this side of the Committee we would never introduce any Measure such as this, and I am certain that my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford would be the last to introduce such a Measure. I value the Parliamentary Secretary more highly than the hon. and gallant Member for Hull, because the Parliamentary Secretary sits on the Front Bench and therefore is lower than the hon. and gallant Member for East Hull——

Mr. Bracken: Rather complicated.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Complicated, but it can be worked out. At the same time, no argument has been put by hon. Members opposite in reply to this question. They start by saying it is difficult to distribute the money. What has that got to do with justice, and with the stopping of prize money? It seems to me quite extraneous. Hon. Members opposite have always been most keen, so they have said, that, no matter what the difficulties, justice should be done. Yet, when it happens to suit them, they are the first to say that it is too difficult, and that justice cannot be done. Why is it more difficult now than in the past? We are told simply that the Royal Air Force should have a share. Hon. Members on this side of the Committee could not object to that. Indeed, they believe that to be a fair consideration. But that does not make it any more difficult. It merely means that some arrangement has to be made between the Departments before the money is paid.
We are told that the amount of the money has been reduced, and, therefore, that there is less to share out, and, therefore, that it should not continue. I have not yet heard one argument from the

Parliamentary Secretary to show why the sum has been reduced. He has produced many statements tonight, including the incredible one that he is giving ships away and charging the proceeds to the Prize Fund. That is the only defence.

Mr. Dugdale: I have never said anything remotely resembling that. I said that ships that were non-condemnable, which would not have gone to the Prize Fund anyhow, had gone to other nations; but I have not said that ships that might have been prize have gone to other nations.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I accept the hon. Gentleman's explanation, of course, but——

The Chairman: I do not think that that question arises here, and I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not continue to discuss it.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I think it does arise here, because one of the reasons given why prize cannot be continued is that the sum is much lower. Therefore, I think it is in Order to take up previous statements in the Debate, as to why the sum is lower.

The Chairman: I do not think so. I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not pursue that line.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I hope that I may have an opportunity later in the proceedings on the Bill to pursue the subject.
Then we are told by the hon. and gallant Member for East Hull (Commander Pursey) if we want to swell the fund, why not add old age pensions? Surely, the situation is quite different. Prize bounty is something which, under the Naval Prize Act, to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not refer, in three Sections—Sections 42 to 44—clearly lays down that prize bounty is payable in certain circumstances. That has always been observed, and it seems very wrong that suddenly a Bill should be introduced to rescind three articles of an Act which has always been looked upon by the Navy as a means of obtaining a certain bounty. Therefore, I do not believe there is any possible consideration in the mind of the hon. and gallant Gentleman which can justify his saying that old age pensions are equivalent.
He may say that King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions lay down certain statements whereby officers and men are not entitled to prize as of right. With that I quite agree. If he will study them, as I have no doubt he has done, in many other directions, he will find that officers and men are not entitled to the right to many things, but that, equally, under Acts passed by the House, they are entitled from time to time to assume that certain sums will be payable under certain conditions. We are the first Members of Parliament to repudiate in that respect these hopes of the Navy.

Commander Pursey: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman allow me? There is a distinct difference between prize money and prize bounty. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Prize bounty comes out of the Exchequer.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: We all know that.

Commander Pursey: When it comes to the question of references, the quotations I gave were from King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions and the Naval Prize Act. There is no prize bounty unless the Crown has declared its intention to grant it. Therefore, there has been no prize bounty since the first world war. There has been no mention of it in the late war. Therefore, there can be no argument about prize bounty. It does not exist. Hon. Members opposite may compare it with the old age pensions or anything else they like. It has no connection with prize money.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I must congratulate the hon. and gallant Gentleman upon trying to emphasise for the fourth time that there is no connection between prize money and prize bounty. I think that we on this side of the Committee are as aware of that as he is. However, if he will look again at the history of the thing, he will find that on every occasion the House has always passed a Measure enabling naval bounty to be paid by Royal Proclamation. He has said, rightly, that it was necessary at the beginning of the war for some such statement to be made. However, we should have imagined that at the end of the war, naval prize would have been payable in exactly the same way as it was in any other case.

Commander Pursey: This is no justification for the argument.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Whereas we are told bounty will not be paid, yet in some way the Government have already paid £400,000 of bounty. I want to know from the Parliamentary Secretary how that has happened. If he will look at the Supreme Court Prize Account he will see that under "Condemned by order of the Court," no less than £250,000 has been paid out by way of bounty. He will also see that payments not yet allocated include £153,000, and there is one further item of £9,200. How does it come about that we have this enormous sum paid by way of bounty if, by this Bill, it is not allowed to be paid? I think we ought to have some explanation of that.

Mr. Levy: The hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) protested that he had not heard any reasons so far why prize money and prize bounty should not continue. I assume that he was genuinely seeking guidance, and I shall try to provide him with some genuine reasons. He mentioned that the only reason he had heard so far was that there is, obviously—and these Debates have demonstrated it—very great difficulty in deciding how prize money shall be distributed. I invite him to consider whether the important factor is not the difficulty but why there is a difficulty.
I suggest that the reason why there is a difficulty is a very simple one—that at this stage nobody really knows what prize money is for. There are three possible things it could be for, so far as I can understand. It could be given for responsibility; it could be related to danger; or, it could arise purely from tradition. Fourthly, I suppose, it could be related to incentive. That is just conceivable, though I do not think anybody at this date would argue that people joined the Navy because they had heard about prize money; I do not think anyone would contend that.
Let us, then, examine the three other possibilities. If prize money is related to responsibility, then the hon. and gallant Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) is obviously quite right in arguing that the distribution of prize money should not even approach an


egalatarian basis, but should be distributed in accordance with "rank and responsibility"—which was, I think, his phrase. That is a perfectly logical contention, so far as it goes. But it is obviously quite impracticable. We cannot distribute money in terms of both rank and responsibility accurately. Take the case of an admiral who might be responsible for six months during a six years' war, and a lieutenant who might be responsible to a lesser degree for a longer period, perhaps six years. I defy anyone to compute those two considerations and balance one against the other. It is not, in fact, a very practical suggestion if we want to be strictly logical about it, nor do I think that there is any reason for accepting that as a reason.
8.0 p.m.
The second possible reason is that prize money is related to danger. In that case, the hon. and gallant Member for East Hull (Commander Pursey) is entirely right when he half suggested, as he did during the Second Reading Debate, that there should be no differentiation in distribution, according to rank. That is quite true. If danger were in fact to be the criterion, then all must receive equal shares and not only the Royal Navy but a great number of other categories who served on the sea, and who have been discussed in earlier Amendments tonight, must also be included. I suggest that neither of these criteria is in point of fact the right one.
The real basis of prize money is purely and simply tradition. The fact that it is traditional does not, of course, for one moment condemn it; but neither does it for one moment justify it. There can be good traditions and bad traditions. As I think the hon. and gallant Member for Chertsey (Captain Marsden) pointed out on the Second Reading, Nelson regarded this as a bad tradition because he found that in practice ships were sometimes more interested in chasing prizes than in winning battles. For that reason, he invented a counter-agent in the form of prize bounty.
Both of these attitudes are no longer valid. First of all, no one here would contend that conditions in a modern navy are such that there is any serious danger of ships going off in search of prize instead of keeping their noses, as it were, to the battle front. As to prize bounty

no one has argued that it is anything more than an anachronism. I suggest from this analysis that the real root of the trouble is that there is no explanation of prize money, except the traditional explanation, and there is no ground for thinking that it is a good tradition.
Even if those reasons were not adequate in themselves, I would remind the Committee that the character of the Debate has not perhaps been particularly edifying. I think it was the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) who suggested that what we were doing in fact was distributing the swag. That is what we have been doing during the Second Reading Debate and this Debate, and I suggest that that is a proceeding which does not contribute very substantially to the dignity of our senior Service.

Commander Noble: We are most grateful to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Levy) for the dissertation he has given us on prize money and prize bounty. I should like to bring the Committee back to the point which we on these benches are trying to make. It has been usually the custom of the present Government during the past three-and-a-half years to take more powers in Bills than they want to use, and when we accuse them of that they say, "Oh, we may never really want to use them." Why are they not doing that on this occasion? Why are they taking this opportunity of abolishing prize money, with the result that that power cannot be used in future? That is the point which we are trying to make from this side of the House.

Mr. Dugdale: I am interested to hear the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble) because I understood that, at any rate, in relation to prize bounty he was in favour of abolishing it in future.

Commander Noble: I am in favour of abolishing prize bounty if it is to be distributed in the old-fashioned way to those who actually win the bounty. I should be perfectly prepared to have prize bounty again if it were distributed in some other way which was required at the time.

Mr. Dugdale: I only mentioned this to draw attention to the fact that there does not seem to be complete unanimity on the benches opposite on this question. I


noticed that the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head), who is not in his place, has said that allocations in a future war would become virtually impossible. I agree, and think that they would become virtually impossible.

Mr. Bracken: Quote my hon. and gallant Friend correctly.

Mr. Dugdale: I think that the whole of this Debate has shown the very great difficulty of the distribution of prize in accordance with Acts passed several hundred years ago. I think that these difficulties will become increasingly great in any future war. We have seen the difficulty that is now brought about by the R.A.F., participation in warfare at sea, and that participation, for all we know, may increase very considerably, and there may even be ways in which the three Services will be still further coordinated by the time we come to a future war. In short, the difficulties are such that we cannot believe that by the time we come, if we should come, to another war, it will be possible to resolve them.
These anomalies and anachronisms—and I dislike both words equally, but I do not know of any others to take their place—are due not to any political party but to the advance of science. Science has advanced in such a way that the conditions of war which were believed likely to be permanent in the 17th century are so far removed from reality today that the idea of granting prize has itself become quite out-of-date. We do not want—and I emphasise this again—to leave sailors in any doubt whatever. We do not want them to feel what they might have felt otherwise, that the House of Commons does not know—there may be prize or there may not be prize—which would be the situation of officers and ratings if this matter were left in abeyance. We want them to be quite certain that in fact there will not be prize. They will realise perfectly fully the reason for there not being prize. In view of the complete alteration of the conditions of warfare in the present day to what they were when prize was first instituted, I think that the only sensible and reasonable course is to say, once and for all, that prize bounty and prize money payments shall cease.

Mr. Bracken: The Parliamentary Secretary scarcely did justice to his right hon. colleague the Minister of Defence when he said, in his mournful way, that there may be co-ordination in another war. What exactly is the Minister of Defence doing if we are not to have some co-ordination in another war? Does the hon. Gentleman agree with some of his hon. Friends behind him, who described the Minister of Defence as a "dummy dreadnought"? I think that this attack on a Minister is serious; at any rate, it is deplorable. The Parliamentary Secretary told us that science has changed war. What a brilliant thought. A new Einstein is among us. What does he think we have been doing during the last war with numbers of scientists engaged in inquiries on all sorts and conditions of warfare? Of course, science changes war, but let me say to the Parliamentary Secretary: Courage wins war and courage deserves prizes.

Commander Pursey: Nonsense.

Mr. Bracken: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is a verbal bruiser, and advises me through his interjections. If he has any remarks to make let him get up and say them instead of jeering and gibing from his seat.

Commander Pursey: I am merely doing what the right hon. Gentleman did when I was speaking. It is simply a question of giving him a small dose of his own medicine by the interjection of one word "nonsense."

Mr. Bracken: Let me congratulate the hon. Member on his fourth speech on this Motion. It is a pity that the Parliamentary Secretary got such great enjoyment in telling us tonight that this gave him the opportunity of assuring sailors that in the future under no possible circumstances would they ever get any prize money. I remember the present Minister of Defence used to be a most tremendous battler for prize money. I used to support him and he stood firmly for prize money. He has abandoned lots of things since then, but we are not going to abandon the principle for which we have fought on this Bill. Because of the utterly unreasonable speech of the Parliamentary Secretary his hon. Friends will have to trudge through the Lobby again.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: The Parliamentary Secretary put forward the strongest argument possible for continuing the payment. His opposition to it was entirely on the question of the great difficulty in distribution. That is no argument against prize money as such. If there is a difficulty in distribution it is the Government's business to overcome that difficulty, not to do away with prize money because there are difficulties. Some much more potent reason should be given by the Government in order to abolish this 300 year old tradition. The Government are very anxious and are always endeavouring to break down the traditions of this country and of the Services. They want to pull down everything. That is an actual fact, unfortunate but true.
This tradition of prize money is now to be done away with. An hon. Member says it is a bad tradition, but if he had the honour to be a member of His Majesty's Navy he would not think it was such a had one. I do not want to detain the Committee, but the question is that we on this side of the Committee desire to retain the power to bring prize money into operation in any future war, should war unfortunately break out. The difficulties of distribution will in the future perhaps be greater, or perhaps they may be much less than at the present time. Therefore, it should be decided at the time whether prize money should be continued or not now. I very much regret that this tradition of service should be done away with, and I strongly oppose the Clause.

8.15 p.m.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he will give an answer to the question which I put to him. I pointed out that he was saying that under Subsection (2) naval bounty was not payable in respect of the war, whereas the Supreme Court Prize Account had paid altogether £400,000 out of this fund. Could he tell me how that occurs? We are entitled to an answer. Half a million of money is apparently paid out of this fund for the purpose not authorised under this Bill, which otherwise would come into the Prize Money Fund. The Committee is entitled to an explanation.

Mr. Dugdale: I think the hon. and gallant Member is referring to Crown

Bounty. Crown Bounty is, in fact, a right which has been exercised by the Crown for a considerable time for redressing hardship cases caused by condemnation for prize by a grant of bounty out of the proceeds of the condemnation. It is something different and has nothing to do with what we are discussing. That answers the question of the hon. and gallant Member, but in fact, in speaking about it, he is raising something which has not got anything to do with this Clause.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN collected the voices and declared that the "Ayes" had it.

Mr. Thomas: On a point of Order.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am on my feet, and the hon. Member cannot speak while I am on my feet.

Mr. Thomas: I rise to a point of Order. I very definitely said "No" myself.

The Deputy-Chairman: I collected the voices and there was not a single voice heard from the Opposition side of the Committee. I did not hear it.

Mr. Bracken: The Question was not put.

The Deputy-Chairman: It was put. I am not going to argue with hon. Gentlemen, but the Question was perfectly clearly put and there was not a single "No" from the Opposition side of the House. All I heard were the "Ayes."

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: On a point of Order. I think I am sitting further away from the Chair, and I must point out to you, Mr. Bowles, that if you, in point of fact, did put the Question it was not audible where I was sitting. I am not suggesting for one moment that you did not put the Question, but I should like to point out that it was not audible in this part of the Committee.

Captain Marsden: I should like to reinforce what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Shewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt). In my speech I had already stated that I was anxious to vote against the party opposite, and it may have been because of the tremendous noise and jeers that we on this side of


the Committee did not hear. I did not hear you say anything.

Mr. Bracken: The last thing any of us on this side of the House would like to do is to argue with the Chair, but it is true to say that neither I nor any of my hon. Friends heard the Question put. It may have been because of the noise opposite that we did not hear.

The Deputy-Chairman: I always believe that I speak as loud as is necessary for everyone to hear me even in a Committee as small as this. I am quite certain that I put the Question. Hon. Gentlemen on the Government side of the House said "Aye," but there was not a single sound from the other side of the Committee. I do not think I should argue the question at all, but I am only doing this for the benefit of

hon. Gentlemen. Either they did say "No" when I put the Question or they say I did not put the Question. They cannot have it both ways. The fact is that I put the Question, collected the voices and there was not a voice in the negative. I therefore declare that the "Ayes" have it.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Further to that point of Order.

The Deputy-Chairman: No, we will proceed to the next Question.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 9.—(Short title and definition.)

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 196; Noes, 69.

Division No. 15.]
AYES
[8.20 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
McGhee, H. G.


Albu, A. H.
Dumpleton, C. W.
Mack, J. D.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Edwards, John (Blackburn)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
McLeavy, F.


Alpass, J. H.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
MacPherson, M. (Stirling)


Attewell, H. C.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
MacPherson, T. (Romford)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Ewart, R.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)


Bacon, Miss A.
Fernyhough, E.
Marquand, H. A.


Balfour, A.
Follick, M.
Mellish, R. J.


Barstow, P. G.
Foot, M. M.
Messer, F.


Barton, C.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Battley, J. R.
Gibbins, J.
Mitchison, G. R.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Gibson, C. W.
Monslow, W.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Moody, A. S.


Benson, G.
Grey, C. F.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Berry, H.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Beswick, F.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)


Binns, J.
Guy, W. H.
Moyle, A.


Blackburn, A. R.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Naylor, T. E.


Blyton, W. R.
Hale, Leslie
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Bottomley, A. G.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Bowen, R.
Harrison, J.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Oliver, G. H.


Bramall, E. A.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Orbach, M.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hobson, C. R.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Holman, P.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Horabin, T. L.
Pargiter, G. A.


Burden, T. W.
Hoy, J.
Parker, J.


Callaghan, James
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Parkin, B. T.


Castle, Mrs B. A.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Cobb, F. A.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Pearson, A.


Cocks, F. S.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Peart, T. F.


Coldrick, W.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Perrins, W.


Collick, P.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Popplewell, E.


Collins, V. J.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Colman, Miss G. M.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Cove, W. G.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Proctor, W. T.


Crossman, R. H. S
Keenan, W.
Pursey, Comdr. H


Daggar, G.
King, E. M.
Ranger, J.


Daines, P.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Rees-Williams, D. R.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Kinley, J.
Reeves, J.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Levy, B. W.
Rhodes, H.


Deer, G.
Lindgren, G. S.
Richards, R.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Longden, F.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Diamond, J.
Lyne, A. W.
Robens, A.


Dodds, N. N.
McAdam, W.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Driberg, T. E. N.
McEntee, V. La T.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)




Sargood, R.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Shackleton, E. A. A.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Sharp, Granville
Thurtle, Ernest
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Titterington, M. F.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Simmons, C. J.
Tolley, L.
Williams, R. W. (Wigan)


Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Skinnard, F. W.
Turner-Samuels, M.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Smith, C. (Colchester)
Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Wise, Major F. J.


Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Usborne, Henry
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Smith, S. H (Hull, S.W.)
Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Yates, V. F.


Snow, J. W.
Viant, S. P.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Walker, G. H.
Zilliacus, K.


Sylvester, G. O.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)



Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Warbey, W. N.
Mr. Collindridge and


Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Webb, H. (Bradford, C.)
Mr. Wilkins.


Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Weitzman, D.





NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Pitman, I. J.


Baldwin, A. E.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Birch, Nigel
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Howard, Hon. A.
Ropner, Col. L.


Bossom, A. C.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Bower, N.
Keeling, E. H.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Langford-Holt, J.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Lipson, D. L.
Smithers, Sir W.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Lloyd, Maj Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Clarke, Co1. R. S.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Conant, Maj R. J. E.
Low, A. R. W.
Sutcliffe, H.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Digby, S. W.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Touche, G. C.


Donner, P. W.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Walker-Smith, D.


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Marples, A. E.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Drayson, G. B.
Marsden, Capt. A.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Drewe, C.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)



Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grimston, R. V.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Mr. Studholme and




Brigadier Mackeson.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Disposal of certain sums standing to the credit of Prize De- posit Account or prize causes.)

(1) Sums which at the passing of this Act are standing to the credit of the Supreme Court Prize Deposit Account in respect of ships or goods (within the meaning of the Naval Prize Act, 1864) not then condemned, or are so standing to the credit of a cause instituted in a prize court in any such country or territory as is mentioned in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section four of this Act, and which are unclaimed at the latest time for making claims fixed by any advertisement published in relation to the said Account, or in relation to that court, as the case may be, under the next succeeding subsection, shall be paid into the Exchequer at such time thereafter, and in such manner as the Treasury may direct.

(2) Advertisements for claims shall be published in relation to the said Account and in relation to each such prize court as aforesaid, in such form and manner as may be determined by or under the authority of the President of the Probate Division of the High Court in the case of the said Account, or of the principal judge thereof in the case of each such court, consistently with the following requirements, that is to say—

(a) that each such advertisement shall fix as the latest time for making claims a time

not earlier than the expiration of three months from the publication thereof in the case of the said Account, or six months from the publication thereof in the case of any such court, and
(b) that the manner of publication of such advertisements shall consist of or include publication in one or more newspapers circulating in the United Kingdom in the case of the said Account or in the country or territory in which the court has jurisdiction in the case of any such court, and also in one or more newspapers circulating in such other countries or territories as the said President or the said principal judge, as the case may be, may direct.

(3) A sum shall be treated for the purposes of this section as unclaimed at a given time if at that time no claim in respect thereof by a party other than the Crown has been filed with the Admiralty Registry in the case of the said Account or with the registry of the court in the case of any such prize court as aforesaid, or if at that time all claims in respect thereof filed as aforesaid before that time have been dismissed or withdrawn.—[Mr. Dugdale.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Dugdale: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
We have discussed——

Mr. Langford-Holt: On a point of Order. Just before the Division was called on Clause 9 I was standing on my feet seeking to put a point of Order to you, Mr. Bowles. I wonder whether I could have your guidance whether I am or am not entitled to put a point of Order. Other hon. Members who were present in the House when that Division was called would bear out my statement that I was standing on my feet. I think you will remember that I was standing on my feet. I hope that you will give me your guidance whether I am entitled to put a point of Order.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is not entitled to put a point of Order when the Chairman is himself on his feet. If the hon. Member wishes to put his point of Order now he will be quite entitled to do so.

Mr. Dugdale: As I began to say, we discussed this new Clause last Thursday in connection with the Financial Resolution, and also earlier today, when the discussion was actually wider than this Clause and covered the Clause. I do not know whether it is necessary for me to explain any further what the proposed new Clause seeks to do. I hope that as I have explained it upon a number of occasions the Committee will be prepared to agree to it.

Mr. Manningham - Buller: I am astonished at the manner in which the Parliamentary Secretary has proposed this new Clause. He started off by saying that it had been discussed last Thursday but when we discussed that Financial Resolution I raised a point of Order to ask whether we could make reference then to this new Clause in the course of the discussion. The indication was that one would be called to Order very quickly if the terms of the new Clause were discussed. The result is that hon. Members are not very clear about what the new Clause proposes to do.
In our opinion it is a most surprising Clause for the Government to seek to insert at this stage in a Bill called a "Prize Bill." In fact, the proposed new Clause has nothing whatever to do with prize money or the Prize Bill. It is a machinery Clause for enabling the Parliamentary Secretary to transfer to the Exchequer sums of money which are standing in the Supreme Court Prize Deposit Account in respect of goods, and maybe ships, which cannot be condemned

as prize. I should have liked to have heard the Parliamentary Secretary attempting to justify the inclusion of this Clause in the Bill. Not one beneficiary from the Prize Fund can possibly benefit under the proposed new Clause, which is for the benefit of the Exchequer and no one else. It is true that the amount of money involved is small, as we were told in the discussion last Thursday, but even the addition of a small amount of money to the Prize Fund would enable the Government to do more justice than they are at present doing to the people who have rights in regard to that Fund.
8.30 p.m.
I am particularly concerned with this Clause in view of something which the Parliamentary Secretary said earlier today He told us that all ships and goods which were liable to be condemned were taken into account in forming the estimate of £5,250,000 for the Prize Fund. If that be so, why do we find that this Clause applies to ships and goods "not then condemned." The Parliamentary Secretary has told us that the Financial Resolution only applies to matters which cannot be condemned. Why then do we find in the Clause the words "not then condemned"? Should not the words be "which are not condemnable"? If they can be condemned, they should go to the Prize Fund, not to the Exchequer. The inclusion of those three words clearly implies that ships and goods will be condemned in the future, and if they are, this Clause would appear to operate in respect of the proceeds.
That is a point on which I should like to hear a statement from the Parliamentary Secretary. I hope he will say that the wording does not accord with the intentions of the Government in that respect. It certainly does not accord with his explanation of the Financial Resolution last Thursday night. I hope he will seek to justify taking out of the Prize Fund for the Exchequer sums of money which in some curious fashion have found their way into the Prize Fund and which people who are not expert in such matters would consequently assume would fall to be divided in the same way as the Prize Funds normally are. In the absence of an explanation from the hon. Gentleman, I fear that we may have to show our disapproval of the Clause and the precedent created by it in the Division Lobby.

Mr. Dugdale: I thought that, as I said, an adequate explanation had been given previously, but as the hon. and learned Gentleman would like me to give the explanation again I am perfectly willing to do so. The sums involved are, as he says correctly, approximately £7,000. They are not large sums and they will not affect prize distribution in a very big way. The actual difference they would make to each person were they distributed would be in the neighbourhood of 2½d.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: If the £7,000 were included, would not the Government be able to add a few people to the classes already included as beneficiaries?

Mr. Dugdale: Certainly. We could add any number of people provided that the total sum which they received did not exceed £7,000. The point about it is that these are not prize; they are non-condemnable and non-condemned goods. It is therefore inappropriate that they should be used as prize. As I said before, any sum might be used as prize. We might take any sum out of the Treasury. We might vote that the money spent on Old Age Pensions or the salaries of M.P.s should be taken as prize. However, we do not do so, and these goods are not used as prize because they have not been condemned and are not condemnable.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Where is that in the Clause?

Mr. Dugdale: The Clause says that they are not condemnable goods. It says:
Sums which at the passing of this Act are standing to the credit of the Supreme Court Prize Deposit Account … not then condemned.
I said that they are not condemned, and as the process will have been completed by that time, they will be non-condemnable. They will be neither condemned nor condemnable. The point is that these moneys may accrue to certain people who own the goods in those ships if they like to claim for them, but they have not claimed for them. If the Clause were not brought in, the Treasury would have to lay claim to each separate item one after the other, and that process would go on for a large number of years. After the first world war it went on for many years.

Mr. Bracken: Hear, hear.

Mr. Dugdale: The right hon. Gentleman says, "Hear, hear." Hon. Gentlemen opposite are always talking about the swollen Civil Service and the number of people employed on useless jobs. Here is a job which would occupy a large number of people to no purpose whatever, and we think it is as well that they should not be occupied in doing work which will serve no useful purpose. The sum of £7,000 will be handed to the Treasury, and the Treasury have stated that they will be responsible for indemnifying any people who may afterwards produce claims which need settlement.

Mr. Bracken: The Treasury have the money now.

Mr. Dugdale: The money is now in the Prize Court Fund, and the Treasury will have it if the Clause is passed. The Treasury will then use it for indemnifying people who can show cause that they should have money in payment of goods which they have lost. I think that explains the position quite fully and I think the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. and learned Gentleman really know the answer quite well because they have heard it many times before.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I am afraid that I, for one, must admit that the Parliamentary Secretary has not answered any of the points at all. We are told that the words "not then condemned" are meant to include and do include "not then condemnable." When the Parliamentary Secretary was challenged on this point, the only statement he made—I took his words down—was that as by that time—what time he did not stipulate—not condemned would mean not condemnable. I should like to know at what time he believes the phrase "not then condemned" will include "not then condemnable." If he looks at the Supreme Court Prize Deposit Fund, he will see that the sum of £5 million is still outstanding and not yet allocated. Does he really mean that he can twist this phrase of his, "not then condemned," to mean only £7,000 out of £5 million? If that is his claim he must advance something much more substantial. I ask him to go on reading after those three words, because it says,
or are so standing to the credit of a cause instituted in a Prize Court in any such country or territory as is mentioned in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section four …


That means that if the Clause is given a Second Reading tonight any outstanding claim in any Dominion Court will go not into the Prize Fund, but to the Exchequer. On an earlier Amendment I mentioned the case of a ship which was taken in South Africa and had a value of £3 million. If that case is not concluded by the time we give the Clause a Second Reading, that £3 million will go straight to the Exchequer and not to the Prize Fund.
I would also draw your attention, Mr. Bowles, to subsection (3) of the Clause, which says:
A sum shall be treated for the purposes of this section as unclaimed at a given time if at that time no claim in respect thereof by a party other than the Crown has been filed …
That, again, means that the Exchequer will take anything remaining in the "kitty" by default and will be empowered to take sums that should properly go into the Prize Fund. For these reasons, with due respect to the Parliamentary Secretary, I do not think he has made any case to prove either that the figures are small, that his words cover what he says is their meaning, or to explain the much wider implications which would follow upon the passing of the Clause, which would act only to the detriment of those who hope for some money out of the Prize Fund.

Mr. Bracken: I tried to find out what the Parliamentary Secretary really meant by his explanation. He read out part of the Clause but did not seem to understand it. I asked him a question but he did not answer it. It seemed that he was reading from a Treasury brief which he ill understood, and I am wondering, as we cannot hope for a better and more accurate explanation from him, whether the Patronage Secretary might be able to explain it. It is a pity that a member of the Treasury was not here when I invited the hon. Gentleman to give us an explanation for, as no doubt the hon. Gentleman has noticed, other hon. Members wish to take part in the Debate.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he will now bring the Clause into line with what he said about it. He indicated quite clearly in the course of his speech

that it applied to goods and ships which were not condemnable. There is not one word in the Clause to that effect. If I could have the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary, I was asking him—I would not like to interrupt his conversation with the Patronage Secretary.

Mr. Whiteley: Do not be impudent.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I was not being impudent. I was only wanting the hon. Gentleman's attention. We are having a Debate on this rather important Clause and I was asking the Parliamentary Secretary to give his attention to this point. In moving the Second Reading of the Clause he told us that it applied to goods and ships which were not condemnable. As I see it, there is nothing in the Clause whatsoever—I have read it several times—to convey that implication. It says, "not then condemned." That conveys the implication that the Clause applies to goods which are condemned at a later time.
The hon. Gentleman told us, when faced with this point, that nothing else could be condemned after the passage of the Bill. I should like to know what grounds he has for making that statement, when earlier in the day he told us that estimates had been made of what was to be condemned in the future. Those two statements of his are really not reconcilable. I am merely asking the Parliamentary Secretary whether it would not be better to make quite clear what the Clause is meant to imply by inserting after "not then condemned" the three words, "and not condemnable," which he used so often in his speech. There could then be no doubt that the Clause would apply to what he said it was intended to apply namely, ships and goods which could not be condemned as prize. I ask him that because, if he does not agree to this concession, by his refusal to agree he is indicating that his assurance to Parliament last Thursday on the Financial Resolution—that the only matters affected by the Financial Resolution were goods which could not be condemned—was really not justified.
I would express the opinion that the Clause as it stands applies to goods which can be condemned in the future as well as to goods which cannot be condemned. The Parliamentary Secretary has told us


more than once that it is intended to apply only to goods which cannot be condemned. I ask him, therefore, to agree to an Amendment to bring the Clause into line with the statements he has so often made about it.

Mr. Dugdale: I cannot agree. I stated on Thursday night what was the position. My statement is perfectly correct. There is no need to incorporate it—or, indeed, any of the statements which I or any other hon. Members have made—into the

Clause. The Clause states the position. It is the same as that stated by me——

Mr. Bracken: But a little different.

Mr. Dugdale: —and I see no reason at all why there should be any alteration whatever in the Clause. It is correct, it shows the position correctly and I think it should be passed as it stands.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 196; Noes, 68.

Division No. 16.]
AYES
[8.49 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Grey, C. F.
Pargiter, G. A


Albu, A. H.
Griffiths, D. (Bother Valley)
Parker, J.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Griffiths, Rt Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Parkin, B. T.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Guy, W. H.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Alpass, J. H.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Attewell, H. C.
Hale, Leslie
Pearson, A


Anton Gould, Mrs. B
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Peart, T. F.


Bacon, Miss A.
Harrison, J.
Perrins, W.


Baird, J.
Hastings, Dr, Somerville
Popplewell, E


Balfour, A.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Barstow, P. G.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Barton, C.
Hobson., C. R.
Proctor, W. T.


Battley, J. R.
Holman, P.
Pursey, Comdr. H.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Horabin, T. L.
Ranger, J.


Ballenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hoy, J.
Rees-Williams, D. R.


Benson, G
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Reeves, J.


Berry, H.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Binns, J.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rhodes, H.


Blackburn, A. R.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Richards, R.


Blyton, W. R.
Hand, H. (Hackney, C.)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Bottomley, A. G.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Robens, A.


Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Janner, B.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Bramall, E. A.
Jeger, G, (Winchester)
Sargood, R.


Brook, D (Halifax)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Shackleton, E, A. A.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Sharp, Granville


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Keenan, W.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E
Simmons, C. J.


Burden, T. W.
Kinley, J.
Skeffington, A. M.


Callaghan, James
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Skeffington-Lodge, T C


Castle, Mrs. B. A
Levy, B. W.
Skinnard, F. W.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Lindgren., G. S.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Cobb, F. A.
Longden, F.
Smith, H N. (Nottingham, S.)


Coldrick, W.
Lyne, A. W.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Collick, P.
McAdam, W.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Collindridge, F.
McEntee, V. La T.
Sylvester, G. O.


Collins, V. J.
McGhee, H. G.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Colman, Miss G. M.
Mack, J. D.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Cove, W. G.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Grossman, R. H. S.
McLeavy, F.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Daggar, G.
MacPherson, M. (Stirling)
Thomas, John R (Dover)


Daines, P.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thurtle, Ernest


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Titterington, M. F.


Deer, G.
Mellish, R. J.
Tolley, L.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Messer., F.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G


Diamond, J.
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Dodds, N. N.
Mitchison, G. R.
Ungoed-Thomas, L


Driberg, T. E. N.
Monslow, W.
Usborne, Henry


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Moody, A. S.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Dumpleton, C. W.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Walker, G. H.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Moyle, A.
Warbey, W. N.


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Naylor, T. E.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Ewart, R.
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Weitzman, D.


Fernyhough, E.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Follick, M.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Foot, M. M.
Oliver, G. H.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon W.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Orbach, M.
Wilkins, W. A.


Gibbins, J.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Gibson, C. W.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Williams, R. W (Wigan)


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Palmer, A. M. F
Williams, W. R. (Heston)




Willis, E.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Zilliacus, K.


Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.
Yates, V. F.



Wise, Major F. J
Young, Sir R. (Newton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Snow and Mr. George Wallace.




NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G
Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Pitman, I. J.


Baldwin, A. E.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Birch, Nigel
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O


Boles, Lt.-Col. D C. (Wells)
Howard, Hon. A.
Ropner, Col. L.


Bossom, A. C.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Bower, N.
Keeling, E. H.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Lipson. D. L.
Smithers, Sir W.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Low, A. R. W.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Sutcliffe, H.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Touche, G. C.


Digby, S. W.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Marples, A. E.
Walker-Smith, D.


Donner, P. W.
Marsden, Capt. A.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Drayson, G B.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Drewe, C.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.



Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Nutting, Anthony
Mr. Studholme and


Grimston, R. V.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Brigadier Mackeson.


Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

TITLE

Mr. Dugdale: I beg to move, in line 9, after "bounty," to insert:
to authorise the payment into the Exchequer of certain unclaimed sums in prize courts.
This is consequential on the last Clause which I introduced, and which has just been added to the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Title, as amended, agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

8.57 p.m.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: I do not propose to cover again the ground we went over during the Second Reading of this Bill. I would remind the House that while we gave our support to the Bill on Second Reading, we made it clear that our support might not be maintained if the Bill left the House with the glaring anomalies and injustices which it then contained. We have had a tough fight during the Committee stage, and although many of these anomalies and injustices still remain, we have had some concessions made. We have had one definitely made, and we hope that another may be made in another place. We have always tried on this side of the House

to exclude any party bias from the discussion of naval affairs, and we deeply resent the way in which our efforts to make more equitable the scale of distribution have been misrepresented on Second Reading by those who sit behind the Government Front Bench, and today I regret to say by those on the Government Front Bench itself.
The Parliamentary Secretary has refused to reconsider the scale of shares. The Government have advanced no argument to justify the abolition of the Royal Prerogative. I shall not go over that ground again. I shall merely repeat what I said to the Committee this afternoon that we consider this to be one of the most serious features of the Bill. The Government have refused to leave the decision as to prize money or prize bounty until the circumstances arise under which they might become payable in the unfortunate event of another war.
I repeat what I said on Second Reading. This is still the worst Prize Bill which has ever been brought before this House. The Government have allowed one definite crumb of comfort to fall—the provision for dependants of men killed before they had completed the qualifying period of six months at sea. I hope that another crumb of comfort may come from another place before the Bill becomes an Act, although I maintain that the alteration should have been made in the House of Commons.
For these reasons we shall not oppose the Third Reading tonight. We have made strenuous efforts to improve the Bill; we have tried to make the distribution more equitable and to include many deserving categories and with the latter we have had some success. We also realise that without a Bill, no prize money can be distributed at all and that is another reason why we shall not go into the Lobby against the Government tonight. We shall hope, however, that in another place, wiser councils may prevail, and that a better Bill may emerge in the course of time.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Dugdale: I am glad to hear that the Opposition do not intend to go into the Division Lobby. As the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas) has said, if they did, and if they were successful, it might endanger the giving of prize money altogether. I am glad also that the hon. Member for Hereford appreciates, although he called them "crumbs," the concessions that have been made. I hope as a result of this Debate he feels that this Prize Bill is not quite such a terrible Bill as he originally painted it in his opening remarks.

9.1 p.m.

Captain Marsden: I wish to support the Third Reading of the Bill for the simple reason that if I oppose anything, I hope to be on the winning side in whatever I am voting for, although it may be a forlorn hope. I also support it because otherwise, were we successful in the Division Lobbies, it would delay the paying out of money to men who have earned it and who, to a certain extent, need it. It is however, not so much the fact that they need it, as the knowledge that this is something which they should be granted, something which they have been led to expect, and it would be a bad thing if the gift to them was delayed.
This Debate has been satisfactory and at the same time disappointing. It has been satisfactory inasmuch as both sides of the House have had a free Debate and frequently found themselves agreed on certain matters. That is all to the good. In my view that is how Parliament should work, and sometimes does work. What is

most unsatisfactory is that when we get something upon which all quarters of the House are agreed, without a dissentient voice, there is no Minister on the Government Front Bench who can give an opinion. We are driven to the conclusion that the Parliamentary Secretary is sent here merely to say "No" to everything. It is no use debating and making serious propositions, propounding arguments, producing evidence and getting support when the Minister can only say "No." That seems to me to reduce the function of this House to a deplorably low level.
Today the Parliamentary Secretary is representing the Admiralty and making suggestions, which I should have thought he might have given definite decisions. That places us in a dilemma. Suppose his noble Friend does not accede to the demand, not only from this side of the House but from the opposite side? He has left us in a difficult position indeed and that is one of the weak spots in this Debate. We have been hurried through this matter which is I suppose of small account to the Chief Whip and those who organised it, although it is of serious account to the people affected by the Bill. But they say, "Shove it through, put it into the machine, turn the handle, get rid of the Opposition, say 'No,' put the Whips on, tell us which Lobby to go through—the great thing is to get it through and get it over with." I am not interested in that aspect at all.
Like many other hon. Members I wish we had had a serious and sensible Debate which would have some effect on the Bill. But nine-tenths of this Debate has had no effect and no result whatsoever. No answer has come to questions put forward and when direct documentary evidence is produced, the answer is "No. Let us have a Division and go into the 'Aye' Lobby or the 'No' Lobby as the case may be." What sort of legislation is that? Although there have been some satisfactory moments, it is most unfortunate that things have been rushed through in this way.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

RECALL OF ARMY AND AIR FORCE PENSIONERS BILL

Considered in Committee.—[Progress, 12th November.]

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

CLAUSE 3.—(Procedure for the recall of pensioners.)

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 38, to leave out Subsection (4), and insert:
(4) Every notice served otherwise than by registered post shall require the person upon whom it is served to acknowledge receipt thereof within such time as may be specified in the requirement; and if acknowledgment is not received the Service Authority may cause a further notice to be served on him by registered post and may by that notice direct that the former notice shall be deemed never to have had effect.
(5) A person who fails to comply with a notice shall be liable to be apprehended and unless he has some reasonable excuse punished in the same manner as a person enlisted in the regular forces or the regular air force according as he was an Army pensioner or an air force pensioner:".—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

9.6 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: On a point of Order. Since we discussed this Amendment on the last occasion, a further Amendment has been put on the Order Paper by the Government. I refer to the one in line 40, at end, insert:
Provided that no steps shall be taken against a person in respect of failure to comply with such a notice unless either it is proved that the notice was received by him or the notice was sent addressed as aforesaid by registered post; and where, in the case of a notice not sent by registered post, it appears to the appropriate Service Authority that the person to whom the notice relates may not have received the notice, the Authority may serve on him by registered post a subsequent notice superseding the original notice,
That Amendment seems to cover a great deal of the ground covered by our Amendment. I do not know whether it would be for the convenience of the Committee if both Amendments were discussed together. I should like to hear the Under-Secretary explain the Amendment in his name. It may be that after hearing his explanation we should ask leave to withdraw our Amendment. Of course, I cannot say as yet. It might be convenient and it might save time if

we could take both Amendments together and if the hon. Gentleman could move his now. I do not know whether that course commends itself to him as well as to you.

The Chairman: I do not think that the course suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman is the correct one. However, there is no objection, on the Amendment now before the Committee, to the Minister dealing with that Amendment and saying what he proposes to do, if the Committee so agree, in regard to the next Amendment. Clearly, he cannot move the one when the other is in the way.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I was merely suggesting that we might discuss both together. I gather that can be done.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Michael Stewart): All of us in this Committee have the same object in mind on this Clause. We have endeavoured to reach it either on the lines of the Amendment proposed by hon. Gentlemen opposite or in the fashion proposed in the Government Amendment. Those objects are, first, to avoid inconvenience or injustice to the person who is being recalled; second, to have a machinery of recall which will work smoothly and quickly bearing in mind that all this machinery operates only in case of emergency; and, third, that we should have regard to those cases which are properly analogous to those of the Service pensioner being recalled.
It may be convenient if I recall what was said as to the procedure we intend to adopt. When this matter was last before us I mentioned that after the proclamation of a state of emergency, which brings the liability under this Bill into effect, a letter of recall will be sent to those pensioners who, in any case, will have previously been informed that they are on the list of men who will be recalled. If that letter produces no effect, it will be followed by a registered letter. It is in that connection that I draw the attention of hon. Members to the Government Amendment. I mentioned this matter of a registered letter on the last occasion simply as part of our intention. I was much impressed


by what was said by hon. Members opposite about the importance of making our safeguards as great as is reasonably and administratively possible.
The registered letter figures now not merely as a statement of intention but as something in the statute itself. If the registered letter also failed of its purpose, it would then be for police inquiries to be made. It might be that those inquiries would reveal the reason why the letters had produced no results. Only after the ordinary letter and the registered letter had failed in their purpose and there had been police inquiries, would the commanding officer of the unit, in the light of what was revealed to him by the police, consider whether it was proper or necessary to send an escort for the man in question.
Since the matter was last before the Committee, I have considered very carefully whether we ought not to go further still and provide, not only that the Department should send a registered letter, but that it should not proceed if the registered letter is returned as not having been delivered. I found on examination that that was not a reasonable step to take, for the simple reason that anyone to whom a registered letter is addressed can avoid delivery of it by simply refusing to accept it. If we went further, we should be putting a premium on anyone who was liable under this Act who definitely wanted to avoid liability. The Committee will notice that the provision suggested in the Government Amendment is that for the serving of an enlistment notice on a National Service man.
May I take the argument a little further with particular reference to the second part of the Amendment which was moved on the last occasion by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). That Amendment read:
(5) A person who fails to comply with a notice shall be liable to be apprehended and unless he has some reasonable excuse punished in the same manner
—and so on.
That will be on the lines of the procedure for the serving of a training notice on a part-time National Service Man laid down in the National Service Act. What I submit to the Committee and to hon. Members who supported that Amendment is that that is not a really correct analogy here. Under the National Ser-

vice Act, after a man has been required to register and has been required by notice to submit himself for medical examination, we come to the point where an enlistment notice has to be served, and, in such cases, the procedure laid down is that outlined in the Government Amendment—that, as from the time specified in the enlistment notice, sent if necessary by registered post, he shall be deemed, in effect, to be covered by military law.
I have considered very carefully whether this procedure is likely, and can reasonably be feared, to put a pensioner in an undeserved and invidious position, but let us consider what his position is. The danger against which we are trying to safeguard is that he should be convicted or even charged with the offence of desertion or absence without leave on the strength of a notice which he may not have seen. Let us consider what the real position is. This man knows, well in advance of the emergency, that he is liable to recall in time of emergency. He knows, not only from the Act, but also from the fact that he has opted for a reassessed pension with continuing liability, that he is liable to recall. Further, he will know it by virtue of the fact that, if and when an emergency comes, there will be a proclamation.
We submit that it is reasonable for him, in view of all the circumstances, not to take action which would lead to his being completely untraceable at a time when he should reasonably know that he will be required.
9.15 p.m.
Let us suppose that through some chain of circumstances—which I am bound to admit it is difficult to imagine—the notice does not reach him. What, then, is the position when he finds himself finally brought to his unit, or when, having himself discovered that the notice had been served on him and that he had not seen it until very late, he may himself go forward and say, "I should have come at once had I known that this notice had been delivered"? His commanding officer, of course, may elect to dismiss the case, and, undoubtedly, if there were any reasonable excuse whatever, he would do so. In extremity—if we suppose again that the commanding officer acts without common sense and without discretion in this matter—it might go to a court-martial,


but there, once more, there would be no conviction if it were clear that the man's absence was due to circumstances beyond his control.
We have tried to consider every possible contingency, however unlikely, and we have, therefore, in this Amendment devised a procedure which goes, indeed, a bit further than the precautions taken for naval pensioners under the Naval Act which is comparable with the provisions for Army Reservists and National Service Men on whom enlistment notices are served. Therefore, I ask the Committee to agree that, to go further, would be to go beyond precedents, prudence and reason. In these circumstances, I hope that the Opposition Amendment will not be pressed.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the hon. Gentleman say how this procedure is going to operate in Southern Ireland?

Mr. Stewart: It cannot operate at all outside His Majesty's Dominions; there can be no machinery of enforcement. It would only operate within the Commonwealth if the Dominion Government concerned saw fit to pass legislation which would make it enforceable.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Do I understand that somebody in Southern Ireland may apply for the increased pension and then, when the registered letter is sent and there is no reply, it would be impossible to apprehend him or to call him up?

Mr. Stewart: That would be the case, as I explained. The same would be true of a pensioner in a foreign country.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am bound to say that the Amendment which the Under-Secretary of State for War has now put down goes a very long way to meet the points raised from this side of the Committee on 12th November. Hon. Members on this side recognise that this is a genuine attempt to meet what is now, I understand, recognised to be a real difficulty. I think that the points of difference between us have been very largely narrowed, but there is still a small divergence, and I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could indicate the reason why the form of words contained in his Amendment has been put forward rather than that which

is on the Order Paper and which we formally moved 10 days ago.
The one difficulty which the Under-Secretary of State for War seemed to apprehend from our Amendment was that caused by a contumacious person who declined to receive a registered letter by the simple action of refusing to sign for it. I think that if the hon. Gentleman will look at the terms of our Amendment he will see that no such difficulty would arise there, although it might arise from the form of words in one of the alternatives he uses. In our Amendment we lay down the condition that the notice shall be served upon the man by registered post. I am speaking without any chance to consult authorities, but I should be inclined to think that the term "serve" would cover the case where a registered letter was actually handed to a man, but where he refused to accept it or refused to sign for it, whereas, on the other hand, it is quite clear that that difficulty would arise under this Amendment.
Therefore, it seems to me that our form of words is, on the whole, a preferable one, and for this reason. It seems to me that we cover more perfectly and more completely than does the Under-Secretary's Amendment the possibility of a letter not being received. We cover it, because in the Under-Secretary's Amendment one of the alternative conditions is that the registered letter shall be "sent." "Sent," I take it, means "dispatched," whereas we require that it shall be "served upon," which means that it shall actually reach the individual. Therefore, it seems to me that not only is the difficulty which the Under-Secretary apprehends a difficulty which does not arise under our Amendment, but one which does arise under his, but equally our Amendment gives a slightly better safeguard to the people concerned than does the Under-Secretary's Amendment.
I do not want to stress this small difference too much, because I do not think it is likely in practice to arise in any large number of cases, in view of the action which the Under-Secretary has taken in putting down his Amendment; but I think it might be helpful, in deciding on the course which my hon. Friends and I will take, if the Under-Secretary could indicate whether, in the light of that, he thinks that the form of words


which we use is perhaps slightly—I do not put it higher than that—more apt than his own.

Mr. Stewart: I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) that the form of words in his Amendment is more apt than that of the Government Amendment. With regard to the first half of his Amendment, the main difference is the use of the word "served" rather than "sent," I think he will agree. I think I am correct in saying that that raises a real ambiguity. It is quite clear what is meant by sending a registered letter; it means "dispatching" it, and I think it must be said that anyone who sends a registered letter has taken as much reasonable precaution to see that the recipient gets it as he can reasonably be expected to take. It is not quite clear what is meant by the word "serving" in the case of a registered letter. I do not think the hon. Gentleman will really press that point.
The other difference concerns the second part of the hon. Member's Amendment. I thought I had indicated that the objection to that is that the people of whom we are speaking come under military law by a Clause in this Bill to which we have already agreed as from a date specified in the notice; and the legal position, therefore—the circumstances in which they can be apprehended and punished—follow from that fact.
The admission of the second part of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment would undo something to which we have already agreed in an earlier stage of the Bill, and it would be putting on the Service authorities a burden of administration which is really more than would be reasonable to expect. I would ask the Committee, therefore, to believe that we have been anxious not recklessly to sacrifice the rights and convenience of the pensioner to the needs of good administration, but that we have now stretched the matter as far as it can reasonably be expected to stretch.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for the trouble he has taken to meet the serious points which were raised last time in the Committee stage. Every criticism which he has directed to our Amendment is really a criticism of Government Amendments in the National Service Act, 1947. If the hon. Gentleman

will look at the Schedule to the 1947 Act, he will see that the same alteration with regard to call-up as was made in the 1947 Act concerning Territorials was made in relation to the general call-up under the 1939 Act. Therefore, I am not tremendously impressed by the hon. Gentleman's criticism of Amendments made by this Government in the National Service Act, 1947, but I am grateful to him for the effort which he has made to meet our point. He says that one difficulty here is that under this Measure the Reservist comes under military law from the time specified in the notice. But that is also the case—he is not a reservist—with the National Service man under the notice served under the 1939 Act, and if the lion. Member will look at the Schedules of the 1947 Act he will see that point has no substance in it. I think I am right in saying that the Amendments made to the 1939 Act in the 1947 Act were introduced by the Attorney-General.
The fact remains that the service pensioner is made subject to military law by the posting to him of a registered letter which he might never receive. He will become subject to military law from the time stated in that letter which he might never receive. The hon. Member has told us of the administrative arrangements to see that no injustice is done, but in law that individual will be subject to military law from that moment. It may well be that he does not receive the registered letter because he is on holiday in Southern Ireland. When he comes back he will be an absentee because he has not reported on the due date.
That was the danger against which we sought to guard. It is not completely guarded against by this Amendment in the name of the Parliamentary Secretary. This Bill has to go elsewhere and I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to say he will give further consideration to this point so as to see if there is some method whereby he can guard against that danger. I do not think it is completely guarded against by saying there will be a Proclamation in this country. Some people concerned might be on holiday overseas. I am concerned to see that the man who has served long years in the Army and Air Force and is drawing a pension shall not have a black mark put against his character as an absentee merely through non-receipt of the notice. If the hon. Member will say that he will


try to cover that small point then I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) will willingly and gladly withdraw his Amendment in view of the strenuous efforts that the Parliamentary Secretary has made to meet it.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I think the Committee should have some understanding of what is proposed in the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). In the second part of it it says:
A person who fails to comply with a notice shall be liable to be apprehended and unless he has some reasonable excuse punished in the same manner as a person enlisted in the regular forces or the regular air force according as he was a Army pensioner or an air force pensioner.
The Parliamentary Secretary has already explained that so far as Southern Ireland is concerned this Bill will be a dead letter. They may send a letter to a pensioner in Ireland; they may send a registered letter to a pensioner in Ireland; but when it comes to sending an escort to apprehend the pensioner in Ireland they may be up against some slight diplomatic and technical difficulty.
I am not so much interested in the pensioner in Ireland as in the pensioner in Scotland. Under this particular Subsection, what we are doing is putting into operation a piece of legislative machinery which may call up an ex-soldier and make him liable to court-martial as a result of which the maximum sentence is two years' hard labour. It is conceivable that this ex-pensioner may have an entirely different conception of his duty in other circumstances in the last war than of his duty in the next war. I want to give a practical illustration of this. There is no doubt as a result of the experience of war the point of view of soldiers change. I know, for example, soldiers who served in the International Brigade in the first war——

9.30 p.m.

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman's remarks are quite irrelevant to this Amendment. The Clause as a whole deals with the question of the reward of pensions and the notice appropriate for such award.

Mr. Hughes: I am sorry if I have transgressed the rules of Order, but if I had been allowed to pursue my illustration I might have explained my point. I object to any more British citizens being offered to this military machine. Under this Clause a man may be charged before a court-martial and be liable to two years military imprisonment, at the end of which, if he is discharged——

The Chairman: This does not arise under the Clause. It may arise elsewhere, but this is a question purely of machinery. If the hon. Gentleman can, he should address his remarks to that point.

Mr. Hughes: I am endeavouring to find out what exactly this Amendment, moved by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) means. It has to be apprehended that it means that the whole power of the military machine will be used to send a person to two years' imprisonment. I fail to see how that is a means of setting the people free. Rather does it mean the enslavement of a section of the population by putting them under military discipline, to which I object.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Under-Secretary rose before the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) with a view to replying to my hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Stewart: Mr. Stewartindicated dissent.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I understand he does not wish to do so now. If that is the position, it is a little less satisfactory than I had hoped. I do not think it right in the circumstances to divide the Committee since the point of difference has been substantially narrowed, and the Under-Secretary has made an attempt to deal with this very considerable problem. I had hoped for support from the hon. Member for South Ayrshire to prevent innocent people being taken away by military escort.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made:

In page 2, line 40, at end, insert:
Provided that no steps shall be taken against a person in respect of failure to comply with such a notice unless either it is proved that the notice was received by him or the notice was sent addressed as aforesaid by registered post; and where, in the case of a


notice not sent by registered post, it appears to the appropriate Service Authority that the person to whom the notice relates may not have received the notice, the Authority may serve on him by registered post a subsequent notice superseding the original notice."—[Mr. M. Stewart.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(Pension not to reduce pay during recall.)

Mr. M. Stewart: I beg to move, in page 2, line 44, at the end, to add:
and his service pension shall not be withheld or reduced by reason of his being in receipt of any such pay or emoluments.
This Amendment again is one which has exactly the same purpose and gives the same effect as the Amendment in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) and his friends. I only suggest that the wording of the Government Amendment is a little clearer. It takes the word "and" rather than "or." Further, it is somewhat similar to the wording of the Act which deals with naval pensions. For those reasons I commend it to the Committee.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: It is not necessary to say much on this Amendment, except that it obviously covers the Amendment we have on the Order Paper and meets the point raised from this side of the House in the Second Reading Debate. I am not going to enter into a controversy with the hon. Gentleman in respect to the merits of the two Amendments and whether "and" is preferable to "or" or "or" is preferable to "and." I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for meeting this point, and it is not necessary to say more about it except to thank him for the way in which it was done.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Interpretation.)

Mr. George Jeger: I beg to move, in page 3, line 22, to leave out "the pension or."
I move this Amendment on behalf of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) and I also desire to refer to the two following Amendments on the Order Paper. The wording of Clause 5 as it stands seems

to imply that pensions can be commuted and as this is contrary to the impression I previously received from my hon. Friend and from the War Office generally, I shall be glad if the Under-Secretary will accept this Amendment in order to make the position quite clear with regard to the commuting of part of a pension and not the pension as a whole.

Mr. M. Stewart: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend for moving the first of this group of Amendments, and I am glad to say that we shall be very happy to accept it, and also the remaining Amendments. As it stands, the Clause provides against a nonexistent contingency, namely, the whole of the pension being commuted. The whole of the pension cannot be commuted. The Clause, when amended as now proposed, will not provide against that contingency, but since the contingency cannot occur nothing will be lost thereby, and the slightly misleading effect of the Clause as it now stands, suggesting that in certain circumstances the whole of the pension could be commuted, will be removed. I trust that the Committee will be willing to adopt the course which I have suggested and to accept the Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 3, line 23, leave out "thereof," and insert "of the pension."

In page 3, line 24, after "or," insert:
that the pension or any part thereof"—[Mr. G. Jeger.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Attachment rights on recall.)

"No person recalled for service under this Act shall be liable, without his consent, to be appointed, transferred or attached to any military body to which he could not, without his consent, have been appointed, transferred or attached at the time of his original enlistment.—[Brigadier Head.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Brigadier Head: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
We have put down this new Clause because we feel, with other hon. Members on all sides, that the whole spirit on


which the modern army is founded is that of esprit de corps and of maintaining pride in the unit. That spirit is jeopardised and undermined if the War Office, which is the centre of such policies, decides to go in for large-scale cross-posting. A large number of regimental soldiers fear that for administrative convenience the "A" branch of the War Office will disregard the strong feelings which men build up for their units. They will rather be considering men as bodies or digits than human beings by going in for a system of cross-posting without regard to the feelings which have grown up in men during their service in the Army.
This is really an extension of the same principle, namely, that the men who are recalled should be retained within the Army in those units, or at any rate within the same arms of the Service, in which they originally served. What we require is an assurance by the Under-Secretary that the general policy of leaving a man where he has served or where his affiliations, general interests and traditions lie should not be interrupted by the way in which he is cross-posted after he has been called up by this Act.

Mr. M. Stewart: At the outset of the discussion on this matter I should answer a question which was raised when the Bill was previously before the Committee, namely, What are the legal rights of a man in this connection? The answer is simply a matter of fact, and it is that legally he is regarded as having been discharged from his previous engagement and he would not therefore have a legal right of attachment to the corps to which he belonged. I answer that only because hon. Gentlemen required me to do so. It does not affect the general merits of how we ought to seek to make use of his services when he is recalled.
In that connection, I would say, first, that normally it is in the interests of the country, the Service and the man himself that we should get the best possible service out of him and that in considering for what task he is to be recalled we should bear in mind all the relevant factors. They will be, for example, his previous experience in the Army, possibly the knowledge and experience he may since have acquired in his occupation in civilian life, his age, his health and even

the part of the country from which he comes may have an effect; but certainly one of the relevant factors will be the loyalties, traditions and interests which he had during his previous service.
While I say that, it would not be proper to put into an Act of Parliament something which would preclude, if it really was necessary, his being transferred to do some kind of task which was not of the kind he had previously done or in the corps in which he had previously served. We must remember that a considerable period of time may have elapsed between the conclusion of his first engagement and the emergency in which he is recalled, and if we are to get the proper service out of him and to provide him with something useful to do, it might not be possible to do it in the Corps in which he previously served.
Here again I would remind the Committee that if we accepted into the Act a provision of this kind, we should be providing for the Army and Air Force pensioner something which is not provided and has not for many years been provided under the similar procedure for the Naval pensioner. I do not attach too much importance to that, but none the less I thought it a point to be considered. One of the reasons for the introduction of the Bill was the alignment of the Service procedure but there is a further point to which I would particularly call the attention of hon. Members. That is that the whole business of transferring men—I entirely agree with hon. Members opposite—is distasteful and the regret, at the very least, which it is bound to occasion to the man can only be justified if real necessity exists and if there is a real gain in efficiency. But when are those circumstances most likely to arise?
9.45 p.m.
It is in exactly the kind of emergency for which the Bill provides. Hon. Members will know that the rights of soldiers in certain circumstances not to be transferred from one corps to another had to be set aside at the beginning of the recent emergency. It may be a matter for argument whether the emergency right of transfer possessed by the War Office was in all circumstances wisely used, but I do not think hon. Members will seriously dispute that it was reasonable for the Service authorities to be given


that right of transfer during a war, during a period of emergency.
It will be realised that the Bill has effect and that these pensioners are to be recalled only in time of emergency. What would happen, therefore, if, in spite of the other arguments I have advanced, we admitted into the Bill a Clause of this kind? It would inevitably be that, the moment the Bill became of any use, the moment the emergency occurred, the right would certainly be swept away by emergency legislation at the time. I think, therefore, that hon. Members will agree that it would not be reasonable to insert this provision in the Bill.

Mr. A. R. W. Low: I want to answer some of the points which have been put by the hon. Gentleman. I think his main argument for refusing to accept the new Clause was that in times of emergency to which the Bill specifically refers and applies, the War Office must have the power to cross-post and that, if they do not have it, they will take it by emergency legislation. Let me make just two points. First, as we discussed during Second Reading and, I think, the hon. Gentleman himself said in Committee, the emergency might result in a partial or a general mobilisation. His argument, therefore, is not wholly good. There might be a call-up under partial mobilisation in which the cross-posting powers might not be as fully justified. I ask him to reconsider the matter for that reason.
The hon. Gentleman said during the Second Reading Debate that the War Office plan for the working of the scheme was to consider in advance what would be suitable vacancies for these men. Therefore, the decision as to where they shall go will be taken not in times of emergency, but in times of no emergency. The hon. Gentleman intends, so he told us, only to call up men who have definite jobs to which to go. I submit, therefore, that the emergency argument was not a good one.
The hon. Gentleman argued also that it was improper to insert such a Clause into a Bill like the one we are discussing. Why, then, was this Clause, or words very similar to it, in the Army Act for so many years? How does he justify that? The Committee is aware, of course, that wartime emergency legislation put an end, for the duration of the war, to that Clause

in the Army Act, and that earlier this year we specifically amended that Act by removing the Clause. But the hon. Gentleman's argument that we could not have such a Clause in an Act of Parliament must fail completely when it is realised that such a Clause was in that Act for such a very long time. For 12, or possibly the 20 years, the men concerned will have enlisted in the Army as regular volunteers at a time when the old Army Act was operative. One of the conditions of their volunteering would have been that they would not be cross-posted without their consent.
The hon. Gentleman told us—and I have no doubt he is quite right—that, legally, having been discharged at the end of their service, when they are recalled under this Measure they are entering a new engagement and therefore cannot call in aid the condition that they would not be cross-posted, promised on their original engagement. But, I am sure he will agree that if they cannot call it in aid legally, they can call it in aid morally, because the only reason why they are subject to this Measure and liable to be called up to the high age of 60, is that originally they enlisted in the Army as volunteers under certain conditions. That is why they have become liable to the provisions of this Measure; they were volunteers in the Regular Army by their own wish. It would seem almost a breach of faith with these men that the War Office should say, "Now we have recalled you, we have you on a new engagement and can put you where we want to put you. We need have no regard to the terms on which you originally joined the Army."
I hope the hon. Gentleman will look at the matter again. The War Office have no need for the sweeping powers for which they ask, for the very good reason given in the hon. Gentleman's Second Reading speech, that the Government intend calling up only those for whom they have specified jobs. If the War Office decide—as decide they ought, and would if they followed the hon. Gentleman's intentions—only to recall pensionable soldiers for whom they have specific jobs ready, I think that on reconsideration the hon. Gentleman will agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) that there is a good case for this proposed Clause.
I hope when considering the matter now, or later, the hon. Gentleman will not bear in mind the reason given by his right hon. Friend earlier this year for introducing the power to cross-post into Army practice in peace-time. The reason given then was that now we have accepted conscription in this country, we can do what we like with the volunteer. That seems to be a wholly repugnant argument. It was put forward by the right hon. Gentleman——

Mr. Stewart: Mr. Stewartindicated dissent.

Mr. Low: —it is no use the hon. Gentleman shaking his head—and so disgusted the House that we had a Division almost immediately after. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will get that idea out of his mind. I am not so sure that there is not still a trace of it in his mind, which accounts for his reluctance to accept the proposed Clause.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I wish to say a word about this new Clause as I served for two years during the war in an "A" branch of the War Office. Perhaps I may take my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) to task for what he said about "A" branches. They are most unwilling to have men transferred, whether with their consent, or against their consent. The Adjutant-General is just as much concerned with the morale of the men as with their bodies, and I have no doubt that that applies to all Adjutants-General.
I think a criticism can be made of the wording of the new Clause. The words used would provide that a man should not be, "appointed, transferred or attached," except to the corps of his original enlistment. I imagine that there will be quite a number of pensioners who enlisted perhaps 20 or more years ago. For example, I can imagine that quite a number of them originally enlisted in the R.A.O.C. and subsequently entered the R.E.M.E. at the time of its formation less than 10 years ago. As I understand this Amendment, its effect would be to provide that the person in question would have to be posted, in the first place at all events, to the corps of his original enlistment,

in other words the R.A.O.C. I do not think that that would be right or profitable, nor do I think it is what my hon. Friends desire.
May I make a suggestion to the Government which, if they could agree to consider it favourably, might make it unnecessary for us to divide the Committee? Supposing it were provided that a person recalled under the provisions of this Measure had to be recalled into the corps in which he was last serving, that would at any rate get us somewhere. It would mean that a man who had last served in the R.E.M.E. would begin his new term of service in the same corps. If he could be treated as if he were serving on a Regular engagement and not an emergency engagement, his position would be exactly the same as if he had never broken off his service but was continuing to perform it. I do not know if that suggestion will find favour in the eyes of the Government, but I think it reflects what is intended by the proposed Clause. If the Government could agree to look favourably at this suggestion it would go a long way towards meeting my fears on this subject.

Mr. Low: May I point out to my hon. Friend that since the first line of the proposed new Clause contains the words "without his consent …" the objection which he has expressed to the wording of the Clause falls completely to the ground. Of course, the man would obviously not object to going back to the corps in which he was last serving, because as he was presumably enlisted at a time when he could only have been transferred to that corps with his consent, he must be taken as consenting to go back to it. In my submission there is little in the point put against the proposed new Clause by my hon. Friend, although I agree with much that he had to say on other points.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I do not intend to engage in the argument between my hon. Friends as to the interpretation to be put upon this Clause. As a lawyer, I think there is some force in the argument put forward by my hon. Friend who preceded me. There seems to be very little in substance between both sides of the Committee in this matter. The hon. Gentleman has given


a long list of the factors to be taken into account in the posting of these individuals on their recall. At the end of that long list he said that one of the factors to be taken into account was that of old loyalties and the traditions of the Service of the particular pensioner concerned.
I should like to see that factor put at the very top of the list. If the hon. Gentleman could go so far as to say that that will be the first matter for consideration it would go some way to alleviate such qualms as I feel, and might, although I do not know, alleviate some of the qualms of my hon. Friends. It should be one of the chief factors. I should like the hon. Gentleman also to consider whether he could give further consideration to trying to find some form of words, as the words on the Order Paper apparently will not do, to meet the points put by my hon. Friends behind me. The object of both sides of the Committee is really the same as to the intention in relation to the manner in which these Service pensioners shall be dealt with on recall.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Stewart: When I gave the list of factors that have to be considered to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has just referred, it is true that I did end with this particular one but that, I think, he will realise, was to give emphasis to it and to link it up with the general line of argument. I had no intention of suggesting that because it was last in order it was least in consideration. I could not go to the length of saying that it must be regarded as of first and prime importance, but I would agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman's amended version when he said it was one of the chief factors to be considered.
It has been suggested that because a provision of this kind used to be in the Army Act it is, therefore, quite reasonable to have it in an Act of this type. But here we are providing something which has not existed in the Army before—the recalling after an interval of years of men for service when they will be of an age when men are not recalled to an Army engagement and would have had different experience behind them. In the genuine search to find work for them in which they would be happy and useful, and feel they were serving their

country, and working in a way which would fit in properly with the whole military machine, we could not have, as it were, one hand tied by a statutory requirement of this kind.
I assure the Committee that we are not in the habit of regarding men and particularly these men, merely as bodies or pegs or items. The whole approach to them is a personal one. The hon. Member for North Blackpool (Mr. Low) said we ought to consider what to do with them before an emergency arises. That is true, but there again, although we consider that beforehand, we consider it with an emergency in view. Further, it is surely the fact that no one can exactly predict what will develop in an emergency. I ask the Committee to accept the assurance that we are well aware of the full weight and importance of the point advanced. But I ask the Committee also to accept the view that it would not be reasonable to give statutory expression to what is proposed.

Mr. Low: The hon. Gentleman has not given full enough weight to the words "without his consent" at the end of the first line in the Clause. The whole thing is subject to consent. Therefore there is no question of tying the hands of the War Office and preventing them from allowing these men to serve the Army in the place in which they and the War Office together think that they will best serve their country. All these men will, ex hypothesi, be over the ordinary conscription age. They would not be called up, or recalled, by any other engagement and, therefore, they should be treated as the Regulars were treated in the old days.
We must get out of our minds this theory to which I have referred already, that just because we have conscription we can do what we like with everybody in the Army. I am sure that hon. Members below the Gangway will agree, at any rate, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to say that he will reconsider it and that perhaps an Amendment will be introduced in another place. If he cannot say that I shall continue to feel that this Clause ought to be in the Bill now.

Brigadier Head: I should like to support my hon. Friend the Member for North Blackpool (Mr. Low). I am not as happy as my hon. and learned Friend


the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) with the assurances which have been given. My reasons for disquiet are that the men being called up are small in number and their value will be dependent on their goodwill on call-up. It would be a nice act on the part of the Under-Secretary either to reconsider or to put into the Bill some assurance that he does not intend to do what is described in the Army in un-Parliamentary language. These men are long-service men. If called up and treated tactfully they will give loyal and contented service. If they are called up and posted to units of which they take a "dim view," and if that is done by the "A" branch in a somewhat soulless way, it will have disastrous results. The hon. Gentleman assures us that this will be considered in a personal way. I have been in the Army long enough to know that kind of assurance and what it means. What happens is that if a man is a motor mechanic, he finds himself cleaning out the stables in the only remaining cavalry unit, or something like that. I am glad to see that hon. Gentlemen opposite agree.

Major Bruce: That is the good old Tory way.

Brigadier Head: It is well known. I am talking about the Army and cross-posting. I am not talking politics. All we are doing is to try to ensure a square deal for men called up who would not normally be called up and who would not normally be cross-posted. Some assurance on the lines we desire would not only please them—if they ever hear about it—but would reassure us that the best use will be made of their services. We should be satisfied that the assurances of the War Office would be carried out if this suggestion were incorporated in the Bill. I hope that we can have some promise that the hon. Gentleman will reconsider the matter.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I should like to clear up a point with which the hon. Gentleman did not deal. The legal position of these men when recalled is that they will not come back as Regular soldiers serving on their original engagement but as if they had joined the Service as conscripts for the first time. This is a new situation which is created by this Bill and which did not arise under the

Army Act. Is there any difficulty about providing that when these men come back, they shall be treated as if they were serving on a continuation of their original engagement so as to make them Regular soldiers instead of conscripts? I agree that that would not have any immediate legal effect, but it would give them a great deal more confidence than they will have if they merely feel that they are conscripts who can be cross-transferred as they know other conscripts are transferred. The hon. Gentleman did not deal with that point. Can he say whether I am right in my statement of the legal position and, if I am right, whether he will give consideration to this suggestion.

Mr. M. Stewart: I should like to be clear as to the extent of the suggestion. It is true that legally, unless we take action to prevent it, these men could be called conscripts. Is the hon. Gentleman's suggestion merely that we should adopt some procedure which will prevent that being legally so and which will enable a man to say that legally he has entered into another voluntary engagement? We could go as far as that, but I should not be prepared to go as far as to say that it would follow from that we should not have the right to cross-post him if need arose. What we can do—and what we should be prepared to do if any of these pensioners required it—is to say when he receives his notice, "Here is a form of enlistment which you can sign which will make you in name a voluntary soldier. If you wish to say that all your life you have been, not only in fact but in law, a voluntary soldier, we will make arrangements so that that shall be so." I had intended to mention that to the Committee earlier, but it did not actually arise in argument, and is only partly related to the new Clause we are discussing. However, if that is the point in the hon. Gentleman's mind, we can meet it in the way I have suggested.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I should like to go a little further. The Under-Secretary knows that a soldier may continue to serve after becoming eligible for a pension, and he may go on for a longer period than he had originally contracted to serve. I am asking that this man, when recalled, should be treated as if continuing to serve for that longer period. I do not think it will make any great difference, but it would give that more


general right to general transfer that other Regular soldiers would have, though it would give them no higher right. I am not suggesting that the War Office should not, in an extreme emergency, have some right to transfer, but if they can place these men as near as may be in the position in which they would have been, it would do a great deal to allay their fears.

Question put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Rank on recall.)

Any person recalled for service under this Act shall be granted a substantive rank not more than one grade below the substantive rank he held immediately prior to his discharge on pension.—[Mr. Manningham-Buller.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This new Clause seeks to carry out and embody in the Bill a statement made by the hon. Gentleman in the course of the Second Reading Debate. He there gave an assurance to the effect contained in this new Clause, and there seems to be no apparent reason why that assurance should not be contained in this Bill. All that we have sought to do is to put his words—I will not say in more binding fashion, because we want to be fair to the hon. Gentleman—into a Bill, which can be more easily turned up than a speech made in the House of Commons.
I have only one further question to put to him in connection with that assurance. I would like to ask him what is the position, with regard to recall, of a man who was a warrant officer, who was granted an emergency commission at the beginning of the war, and is now a Service pensioner, under the Special Warrant, which I think applies to him? What is his position with regard to recall? At what substantive rank would he be recalled? I think I mentioned this point to the hon. Gentleman, but it is one which has been put to me by somebody affected thereby, and it would be useful if, when he replies on this new Clause, the hon. Gentleman could deal with this point as well.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. M. Stewart: I will first refer to the plain question of fact which the hon. and

learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) put to me at the end of his speech. It is a case of somebody who had been below commissioned rank, had earned a pension in that capacity, was granted an emergency commission during the war, and then retired. That person may have retired in one of two ways. He may have retired drawing retired pay and gratuity under the special terms available to officers of that category. If that is so, then he is, for purposes of retirement—and, therefore for the purposes of this Measure—an officer and outside its terms, and not liable to recall. But if, instead, he elected to draw—as was open to him—a pension at soldiers' rates, and if, further, he elected to have that pension reassessed under the terms of the Royal Warrant when published, then he would be liable under this Bill. He would have elected to be regarded as a soldier for pension purposes, and the liability would have followed. If he is so liable, and if he is recalled, the undertaking which I gave about rank would mean the rank he held before he was commissioned.
It will be realised that men of that type are not the only emergency commissioned officers who might, in certain circumstances, be recalled in emergency and required to serve in the ranks. There are, I believe, a number of Members of this House who might find themselves in that position. Indeed, in the country at large there is a very large number of people who might find themselves in that position, and I do not think it is one to which objection could reasonably be taken. On the main body of the new Clause, we are again asked to put into a statute something which I do not believe is appropriate for legislation. We are asked to say that we will not employ a man below a certain rank and to tie that by the fixity of a statute which is expressly intended to deal with an emergency the exact extent, duration or deepening of which no one is able to prophesy. That, I suggest, is exactly the kind of case with which it is appropriate to deal by a firm declaration of the intention of the Service authority rather than by the words of a statute.
I know that, quite rightly, hon. Members are always chary of relying on an affirmation of Ministerial intention rather than on the express words of a


statute, but no one would maintain, I think, that everything should be dealt with by statute, and nothing by declaration of intention. I submit that if there is a topic which it is not reasonable to put in a statute, it is something which would bind a Service authority in all circumstances, whatever the length, nature, duration or depth of the emergency, not to employ a man below a certain rank. I would repeat that the undertaking which I gave will be fulfilled as far as human prudence can foresee or judge the nature of the emergency, but if anything should happen so unforeseen as to create a situation in which no reasonable person would expect that undertaking to be fulfilled, it would be foolish if it were then necessary to come to this House to untie the statutory knot which we had unnecessarily tied.
I would ask hon. Members to remember that this is a question in which the interests of the pensioner and of the Service Department march together since it is to the interest of the Service Department to get the best and fullest service out of the pensioner. There is no need to believe that they will endeavour to employ men in a lower rank than they otherwise might. I think that on consideration, hon. Members will agree that it would not be reasonable to press this new Clause.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am a little disquieted by what the Under-Secretary has said. It amounted not merely to a preference for ministerial assurances over statutory provisions, which is one thing, but to a definite whittling down of what the Under-Secretary said. I would remind the Under-Secretary of what he said on 4th November to an interruption from his right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger). He said:
Yes, but in no case should we recall him and require him to serve in more than one rank lower than the rank he held immediately prior to discharge."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th November, 1948; Vol. 457, c. 1076.]
I ask the Committee to note the words "in no case."
The Under-Secretary has now said that he can contemplate cases arising out of what he described as the deepening of the emergency, and that he had contemplated cases in which he would do precisely what he then said he would not

do. This takes the matter a little further, perhaps, than whether it is better to have a statutory provision or a ministerial assurance, because the Under-Secretary has sought to qualify the assurance which he then gave. The fact that he has now done so merely in response to an Amendment which sought to write into the Act his own assurance must inevitably arouse in the minds of these pensioners some doubt as to the validity of other assurances which are given.
There is surely no case in which it is more desirable that there should be absolute certainty than this. After all we are here dealing with people of an age up to 60, who will be brought back by the legislative powers from their civilian jobs—dragged back at an age at which, as an hon. Member pointed out on a previous Amendment, no other section of the population is liable to be dragged back. They will be dragged back from their ordinary occupations, and surely they are more entitled than anybody to seek to be protected by statutory provisions as to the terms on which they will be brought back.
Both for that reason and because the Under-Secretary has now said that he can contemplate cases in which he would do what a fortnight ago he said he would in no case do, I am far more disquieted by what the Under-Secretary has said on this matter than by anything else that has taken place in this Debate this evening.

Question put, and negatived.

SCHEDULE

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I beg to move, in page 4, to leave out lines 4 and 5.
I think we should have some explanation from the Under-Secretary before we pass this Schedule. According to this Schedule, there are three categories of Army and Air Force pensioners not liable to be recalled. The first category is a man in Holy Orders or a regular minister of any religious denomination. The second category is a criminal lunatic, and I can quite understand that the Home Secretary is here tonight to prevent the War Office calling up any other people under his jurisdiction. The Secretary of State for Scotland is here to look after the interests of the blind.
I want to know why a man in Holy Orders or a regular minister of any


religious denomination is lumped into these categories. I can quite foresee that I am forestalling the very strongest opposition in another place, when the bishops will want to know exactly why the gentlemen in whom they are interested are exempted under this Schedule. I would like to have some really logical explanation of why men in Holy Orders, or a regular minister of any religious denomination, should be treated with special consideration in this Bill. I understand that archbishops and bishops no longer adopt the attitude that war is futile and demoralising for the community and that the Church dignitaries should be exempted from it. I understand that their point of view now is that war is an institution which receives the blessing and approval of the Church. If that is so, if the slogan is to be "Onward Christian Soldiers," it should not be "For God's sake exempt us."
I have a great admiration for the lucidity of the Under-Secretary to the War Office and for his powers of exposition, and I would like him to give a clear exposition of why this special consideration is given in the Bill. It is no use him saying it has always been in these Bills since the time of Oliver Cromwell. I would like a clear, logical exposition which could be presented to the common sense people in the country.

Mr. James Hudson: I would like to say a word or two in support of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and I want to bring the matter particularly within the confines of this Bill, because the Government in this case are seeking to exempt gentlemen in Holy Orders from the provisions of the Bill although they have already been in the Army in some position for which they have received payment at the appropriate scales and for which ultimately they have received a pension.
This Bill deals only with recalling pensioners, and why a gentleman in Holy Orders who has already found his place in the Army, according to his convictions and his cloth, or despite his convictions and his cloth—I do not ask which at the moment—should now be exempt is a matter which should be explained. It is suggested that because he is a clerk in Holy Orders he should be exempt.
I agree that now may not be the time to argue the general question of clerks in Holy Orders and their place in the Army, but I am submitting that in this case the issue has been solved by the Gentlemen in question. They have found their place in the Army and have received their pensions because they found their place in the Army. After all the trouble which is being taken, even to chasing a man to Southern Ireland—may be with no ability to get him back from Southern Ireland—I want to know why the clerk in Holy Orders should be exempt from the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Michael Stewart: I hesitated to rise too soon, because my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has given assistance to hon. Members opposite in some of their Amendments and I was waiting to see if they were going to return the compliment on this occasion. I think my hon. Friend will agree, if he considers the point, that it is not really incumbent upon me in this Bill to give an explanation as to why it is customary to exempt clerks in Holy Orders and ministers of recognised religious denominations from military service. I think on reflection he will agree that it will not be proper in a small Measure of this kind to make a big departure on general principle which has been adopted in other much greater Measures dealing with the question of military service. The learned comments my hon. Friend has made on the issue could more properly have been discussed when, in the past, we were considering the whole question of compulsory military service. It would be an extraordinary anomaly if we introduced into a Measure of this kind a new definition of principle in the way he suggests.
10.30 p.m.
My other hon. Friend, if I may so say, has got hold of the wrong end of the stick. It would not be possible on this Bill to call up clerks in Holy Orders who had served in the Royal Army Chaplains Department. The Bill is not so drafted as to cover someone of that kind. We might meet the situation where a man had, after perhaps 20 years of life in the ranks, retired on a pension and then taken Holy Orders. If he has done that, I agree he is exempted from the Bill, but


I think my hon. Friend will agree that the number of cases to which this will apply will be very small.
Finally, my hon. Friend objected to the grouping together of clergy, criminal lunatics and one other class of the community—the blind. But I would point to many Acts of Parliament in which similar conglomerations are to be found. For example, those Acts dealing with the franchise group if I remember rightly, criminal lunatics, members of another place and persons convicted of treason together with clergy, both of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church. I submit, therefore, that it would not be reasonable to make the alteration which my hon. Friend proposes.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: If we may be assured that in a future major Bill the War Office would be prepared to consider this issue of principle, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I beg to move in page 4, line 21, at the end to add:
4. A person certified by a local authority as essential to the completion of houses within its area.
This would mean that the War Office would not be able to call up any person whom a local authority decided is essential to the building of its housing scheme. This is a point about which we feel very strongly in Scotland. The Secretary of State for Scotland is there and he can corroborate everything I say in this respect. We need people on our housing schemes far more than they are needed in the Army. At present we are up against the position every day that all kinds of people essential to house building—bricklayers, joiners and plasterers—are being called up for the Army. This Bill extends this call up of essential workers. I say that these people are needed far more in housing schemes in Scotland than for any functions in the Army. We have a big problem of overcrowding and slum clearance to be faced in Scotland, together with a high rate of tuberculosis due to bad housing, and it would be better if the local authorities in Scotland had been called into consultation and had a say in whether a man

should be taken away from necessary building work than transferred to the Army to do goodness knows what. I say it is reasonable, and if the Minister says this might be considered later on a bigger Bill, let me state that if this is put into the Bill, it will be the most popular thing he could do so far as Scotland is concerned.

Mr. M. Stewart: I think my hon. Friend is putting words into my mouth when he talks about a future and major Bill. I said no such thing in my previous remarks. Also, if he will forgive me, he might have saved himself trouble if he had studied more carefully what was said on Second Reading. In this Bill it is made clear that the Minister, in deciding whether a person is liable to be called up, may consider representations made by him or his employer as to the nature and urgency of the employment on which he is engaged. I think that is as far as it is reasonable to go in the direction my hon. Friend outlined.

Question put, and negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed.

FURNITURE INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL

10.35 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): I beg to move,
That the Draft Furniture Industry Development Council Order, 1948, a copy of which was presented on 9th November, be approved.
This order is presented for approval in accordance with the requirements of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947, and it is the second order to be made under that Act. Its purpose is to provide for the establishment of a development council for the domestic furniture industry. In form, it follows closely the order relating to the Cotton industry, under which the present Cotton Board was set up early this year.
The House will recall that the Furniture Working Party some time ago recommended that the Board of Trade should appoint a tripartite National Furniture Council, with an independent chairman, to fulfil a number of functions.


The first of these functions was to deal with the other recommendations of the Working Party; the second was to set up a central institution for the industry, such as the Furniture Research Association; the third was to report on and suggest action to remedy developments in the trade considered to be contrary to the general interest; and the fourth was to act in a general advisory capacity to the industry and the Government.
The Working Party felt that something of this kind was essential, because it pointed out that in normal times there was an intense degree of competition in this industry which might lead to depressed working conditions or to a lowering in the quality of the products of the industry. The Working Party said that it felt the need for some form of permanent machinery to ensure that any future development in the industry should be examined from the standpoint of whether it was in the interest of the industry.
This is an industry which is remarkable for the large number of small firms engaged in it. In 1938, it was estimated that there were 3,000 firms employing fewer than 10 people, and only 1,000 employing more than 10 people, and of that number only 37 employed more than 300. This meant intense competition, with all its advantages and some of its disadvantages. It certainly meant great variations in quality—a high degree of craftsmanship at one end and some pretty awful junk at the other. The war took many firms from making furniture into aircraft work and other war work, and in this the industry made great achievements and advances. During the war certain sections of the industry increased to a considerable extent the degree of mechanisation of production.
Since the war, the utility furniture scheme, although hampered by shortage of timber, has helped in this process by concentrating much of the production on to standard models and, generally speaking, maintaining pretty steady market conditions. The Board of Trade conditions kept quality to a very good general standard. The industry is now on its way back to normal conditions. Timber is certainly not plentiful, but the utility scheme, since the end of the war, has broken the back of the piled up emergency demand. Rationing restrictions

have been relaxed during the last few months and, as I announced this afternoon, we are now relaxing the very close control we have had on furniture production and have introduced freedom for manufacturers to make their own designs, although still within the conditions of the general quality of production specifications.
I am quite sure the House will agree that the utility scheme in furniture has been a great success, and hon. Members will join with me in paying tribute to all those on both sides of the industry, and indeed outside it, who have given so much time, ingenuity and craftsmanship to making the utility furniture what it has become, one of our great industrial assets, because in furniture, as in other fields, "utility" has become synonymous with high standards of design, reliability, quality and craftsmanship. The time for bad jokes about utility furniture is long past, or ought to be long past.

Mr. William Shepherd: What about the good jokes?

Mr. Wilson: I never heard of them. I am tired of newspaper, music hall and, for that matter, B.B.C. jokes about tea-chest utility furniture, based on a recent court case, which referred to furniture before the utility era. There was great play made of that case in the Opposition Press, but little attention was paid to the subsequent correction. It is utility furniture which has purged the industry of that kind of thing, and under the free-design utility scheme, I have every confidence that the utility tradition will be maintained. The loosening up which will follow this afternoon's announcement means that the industry will now be able to get back to normal conditions and will be facing again the problems of its normal structure.
This Development Council order is, I submit to the House, extremely timely, as a strong central tripartite body will have authority and experience to help the industry to solve the problem of how competition may be revived without the former bad effects on quality and conditions; how good cheap furniture from mechanised production can be obtained in quantity without losing the distinctive English traditions of design and craftsmanship; how smaller units are found a proper place in the industry; and gene-


rally how the structure of the industry may be responsive to changing conditions.
The war and post-war periods have seen real advances in relations between both sides of the industry. The Joint Industrial Council is one of those developments, and the co-operation which has come through the work of the Joint Industrial Council has helped in the discussions which have taken place about the establishment of this Development Council and have made it possible for me to introduce this order as an agreed measure between the two sides of the industry. I look forward to seeing many more of these agreements between both sides in other industries. We cannot go on in industry when there is a complete lack of agreement between the two sides, and I hope other industries will follow the furniture industry in this respect.
Dealing now with the order, I can inform the House that in drawing it up the Board of Trade have fully carried out both the letter and the spirit of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947. In accordance with Section 1 (3) we have consulted the appropriate trade associations and trade unions in the industry to which it relates. I am sure the House will remember that, on the Report stage of the Bill in the House, my hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions, then the Paymaster-General, promised that when an order was presented to the House the Minister in charge would give an outline of the sort of discussion which had taken place. Perhaps the House will bear with me for a moment while I carry out that promise, which was asked for by hon. Members opposite.
In this particular case consultation began with the consideration of the Furniture Working Party Report. The British Furniture Manufacturers' Federated Association and the National Union of Furniture Trade Operatives, which are the two principal representative organisations in the domestic section of the furniture industry, accepted in principle the recommendation for the establishment of a central tripartite body. They agreed that this should take the form of a Development Council, under the provisions of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act. A draft agreement was drawn up, and this was published in August as a non-Parlia-

mentary publication, so that those bodies, and any other body or person interested in the operation of the agreement, might comment on the text before the final version came before the House. Comments were made by the British furniture manufacturers and others, including the N.U.F.T.O., and, as a result, we have made a number of modifications.
First, we have deleted from the scope of the agreement the manufacture of metal furniture and divans, and there was a proposed function for co-operative organisations for supplying materials and equipment for marketing and distributing products, which, in accordance with the general desire of those concerned with the order, has been omitted. The exercise of the powers of the Council to obtain information compulsorily has been made subject to an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Council, and the quorum has been fixed at 12. It has been agreed that a decision can be made only if two-thirds of the members of the Council are present.
The only request which has not been granted is that which ruled that there should be three distributors in the Council instead of the one proposed at present; this was a request of the Federation of Retail Furniture Trade Associations. The employers were strongly opposed to the inclusion of more than one distributor, while the unions remain unhappy about the category as a whole. We felt, however, that while one expert on the distribution side can make a real contribution to the Council's work, it was not advisable to increase the number, for the primary business of a Development Council is to get to grips with problems directly affecting production, and only incidentally to deal with those of distribution. Any practical difficulties which may arise through having only a single distributor can readily be met by common-sense working arrangements which the Council can devise for itself.
To come to the terms of the order, the constitution is laid down in the second paragraph and the third schedule. The Council will consist of 18 members, of whom seven will be chosen as capable of representing the interests of workers; three will be independent persons, with no financial or industrial interest in the industry, and one of these will be the chairman; one will be chosen as having


special knowledge of the marketing and distribution of furniture. This is a larger body than was contemplated by the Working Party, which suggested a membership of 12, made up of three employers, three workers, and four independent members. The increase in numbers was made following the strong representations from the British Furniture Manufacturers' Association, who felt that such a wide variety of activities and interests were comprised in the industry that they could not adequately be represented by so few as three persons. The addition of a person having knowledge of distribution was thought to be advisable in view of the great importance of questions of distribution in this particular industry.
In accordance with the Act, all the members of the Council will be appointed by the Board of Trade. The choice of the employers' and workers' members will not only be made after consultation with their representative organisations, as Section 2 (6) requires, but will actually be from lists of nominations provided by those bodies, and applications will shortly be asked for. Sir David Waley has consented to become the first chairman of the Council, and in regard to the other two independents, we hope to secure a man having business and some engineering experience in another field, and a woman. It is for the Council to appoint its own Secretary and any other staff it will require. So far as salaries are concerned, we make no provision in the order for the payment of salaries to any member, except the chairman, though there is provision for the payment of expenses.
Coming to the powers and functions of the Council, all persons carrying on business in the section of the furniture industry to which the order relates, that is, the manufacture of domestic and similar furniture, apart from metal furniture, have to apply to the Council for registration. The Council must enter in a register to be kept for the purpose the name, including business name if any, of each person who applies, together with a description of his business. The Council has no power to refuse registration, to restrict entry under the scheme, or in any way to restrict new persons coming into industry.
The register is designed to secure a comprehensive guide to the firms in the industry and make certain the collection of the levy. The Council's register is open for inspection and copies of entries can be taken, but these will be restricted to the name and address and a bare description of the business. The Council will derive its income from a levy on all persons carrying on the business of manufacture of domestic furniture. This levy will take the form of a percentage levy on the turnover. The rate of the levy is to be determined by the Council and it is subject to the approval of the Board of Trade. It is required that it will be calculated in such a way and on such a level as to give an annual yield which does not exceed £25,000.
With regard to information, the Working Party reported that in its view better statistics of production and distribution should be available, and in particular that monthly figures of sales should be collected by the central body. The Council is authorised to obtain from persons carrying on business in the industry information about their activities as domestic furniture manufacturers, excluding information about costs and stocks. If firms are partly engaged in the production of domestic furniture and partly in the production of other goods, the Council has no power to require them to furnish information about the latter. The exercise of these powers by the Council is subject to certain powers set out in the order, requiring an affirmative vote by at least 12 members and requiring Board of Trade approval as to the form of information required. Provision is also made to protect secrecy of trade processes in collecting information and to prevent disclosure of information relating to individual firms.
I do not propose to go through the list of functions in the Second Schedule. It does not correspond exactly with the list in the First Schedule to the Act, and some have been omitted and some modified at the request of the industry. Should it become apparent when the Council is working that it is hampered by these limitations, it will always be possible to consider amending the order so as to broaden the functions, though of course to amend the order would require Parliamentary approval. We consider that the items put in the list of functions give the Council plenty of material to work


on for the time being, and they authorise it to concern itself with all the ground which the Working Party thought the central body should cover.
The main specific problems to which the Working Party drew attention and which are covered in the order are the need to devise means of encouraging and maintaining a high quality of production in the industry. This is a matter which the Board of Trade had much at heart in the utility scheme, which we believe has laid a useful foundation for subsequent work on the subject. We have high hopes that the Council will develop satisfactory methods of safeguarding quality against the time when the utility scheme comes to an end. Item (4) gives full powers for dealing with minimum standards.
Secondly, the Working Party thought that an urgent need of the industry was power to have a proper research association to carry out research and to coordinate and publicise to the industry any related work done by other research bodies, such as the Forest Products Research Station, and that power is covered by item (1) of the schedule. Thirdly, there was need for the provision of proper training of designers and general education in design for other executives and item (3) in the schedule gives powers for "promoting measures for the improvement of design," though it does not mean that the Council has any powers of enforcing standardisation of design on individual managements and firms. The fourth thing was the need to review facilities for technical education, which is covered in paragraph (7). The need for marketing research and publicity abroad was reported on and is covered in item (13).

Mr. Shepherd: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether any item covered by the schedule is capable of being enforced on the industry by any powers of his Ministry?

Mr. Wilson: With regard to powers conferred in the schedule, the answer is "No." The powers capable of enforcement are powers to register, to collect the levy, and statistics. I was not quite sure what the hon. Member meant when he asked whether we have powers to enforce them on the industry. If he means

powers to enforce the results of the Council's work on individual firms and managements, the answer is "No." There are no powers in the Act or in this order for any form of control over individual firms in the industry. In fact, the Council has no authority to interfere in the management of individual firms. It may not engage in trading operations and it is limited, in the matter of wages, hours, and working conditions, by the fact that these are already covered by the Joint Industrial Council.
There are one or two points of detail to which I would like to draw the attention of the House. The definition of the industry, which is a very difficult one to delineate, is contained in the first schedule. The House will have noticed that, as far as duration is concerned, the order comes into force on 1st January, 1949, and in accordance with Section 8 of the principal Act the Board of Trade in consultation with the representative organisations of employers and workers in the industry, will review the position before 1st January, 1952, to decide whether the Council should continue in being and, if so, whether any changes have been shown by experience to be desirable.
I am very confident that the House will give its approval to this order. It is an agreed order and a very valuable scheme. I am quite sure that under the guidance of this Council, the setting up of which I am asking the House to approve, we can look forward to a period of prosperity in the industry and to the industry carrying out more and more services for the consumers, both in this country and abroad.

10.58 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: The President of the Board of Trade has given us a very exhaustive survey of this order. I think it is proper that such a survey should have been given because this is really the first order under the Act, in the sense that the previous one on cotton merely reconstituted an existing body. The Minister is probably right in claiming some credit for having got agreement on this order within the industry. It is proper that we should have a clear idea of what this order in fact means and, what is more important, what it does not mean, because I find that many indus-


trialists and workers express views which indicate that they have no idea of the real limitation of the order.
The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the representation of retailers. I think there is ground for real criticism in the decision which has been taken by the right hon. Gentleman so far as retailers are concerned. The contention that this is an order dealing primarily with production and that it does not really refer to distribution is one which may, of course, easily be upheld, but I suggest that there are special considerations which apply to this industry and to the distribution side of it which would have justified the right hon. Gentleman in giving the retailer much more representation than has been given.
The first point is that these retailers are concerned with the production element in an intimate way. Very often a producer of furniture will produce for two or three retailers and for nobody else. Moreover, an important point which I think the right hon. Gentleman has overlooked is that in the main these retailers sell the products of no other industry but the furniture industry. They are in a different position from that of the average retailer. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman has made a mistake in confining the representation in this case to only one representative. He should have compromised by having two. I am aware that manufacturers did not want two retailers on the Council. Why did they not want two retailers on it? Because they thought that if they had two or three retailers, the retailers would object to restriction of design. That is the reason manufacturers did not want two or three retailers on the Council.

Mr. H. Wilson: Will the hon. Member say where in this order there will be any restriction of design? What powers are there for that?

Mr. Shepherd: I am not saying there are powers in the order to restrict design. I am merely giving the reasons why the manufacturers did not desire to have two or three retailers on this Council. That is a point of real substance—a substantial argument which the House should consider in relation to the whole idea, because what we are getting, in an awful

lot of legislation, is a "ganging up" of the workers and the employers against the consumers. I suggest that, in a mild form, and not in a drastic form, that is what has happened in connection with this order. The retailer has an important interest in the industry. He is interested in design, in restrictions, in quality. Yet what does the right hon. Gentleman do? He refuses to have even two retailers on the Council. We all know that with one retailer it may well be that on an important occasion the one representative may be ill, which means that the retailers will have no representative at all.
This procedure emphasises the inadequacy of the Affirmative Resolution, and supports the view which we held about this matter when the Act itself was going through the House. The assurances of the right hon. Gentleman that we shall avoid duplication are all very well, but shall we in fact avoid duplication? I can well see that firms will be asked by the Council for precisely the same information as that which they have supplied in the census of production. I should like to know what steps the right hon. Gentleman is taking to see that there is no duplication between the two. I should be surprised if effective means of avoiding this duplication have, in fact, been found.
One of the most extraordinary features of this order is that it is littered with penalties. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that there are four separate sets of penalties, including imprisonment for two years, in an order as short as this. This is apt to frighten people and it may well cause people who are anxious to co-operate to draw back.
There is another matter to which I want to refer, and that is the avoiding of duplication of functions. About this the President of the Board of Trade has said little. We were most anxious, during the passage of the Measure through the House, to get assurances about avoiding duplication, because there already exist in the industry organisations fulfilling many of the functions set out in the schedule. What has the President done to ensure that there is no duplication? For example, the Timber Trades Development Association, a very important body, has to my knowledge not been consulted in any way about this Development Council. That association is running


educational schemes in 60 technical colleges, it runs a research department, it has started timber engineering, and it has a reference library. Yet it has not been consulted, although it is quite possible that the services this organisation is giving the industry will be duplicated by something which is set up to spend this £25,000.
The right hon. Gentleman has got agreement on this order, and I want to help him by suggesting how he can get agreement on more orders. He can do that if he will give a guarantee to the industries concerned that the Government have no intention of nationalising them.

Mr. Speaker: That has nothing to do with this order.

Mr. Shepherd: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind. We are not intending to divide against this order, because it is an agreed measure which has been obtained from the industry. We subscribe very largely to the principle behind it. We realise that this is an industry to which such an order is applicable, with its many thousands of small manufacturers who need some co-operation. We believe there are many things which can be done to their advantage, and we hope that on both sides of the industry there will be the spirit that will make the order a reality. Any of these orders can become an important factor or a dead letter in an industry. The difference lies in the spirit, and we hope that all those concerned in this industry will unite to make this order a useful measure.

11.8 p.m.

Mr. John E. Haire: This is the second opportunity I have had today to congratulate my right hon. Friend on action he has taken in connection with the furniture industry. This afternoon he made a welcome announcement on the relaxation of certain controls. If at that time he tolled the bell on the passing of the old utility scheme, he did right tonight to express his appreciation, as we on this side of the House do, of the useful purpose it has served during the war, and during these post-war years of scarcity. Some of us who have been pressing the Chancellor of the Exchequer for weeks past welcome the announce-

ment the President made with regard to the reduction of the Purchase Tax on non-utility furniture and I feel sure that will be well received in the industry. I want to add my welcome to the order, and my further congratulations to the President, and to say that it comes as a very worthy result of months of work by both sides of the industry. It is an agreed measure, and I feel sure that we can give it our Parliamentary blessing tonight.
At the same time, there are a number of questions that we should ask. I want to direct my questions to the second schedule, which deals with the functions of the Development Council. With regard to function (I), would the Council itself undertake research in given circumstances, and will it be active in its encouragement to the industry to use existing organisations — for example, the Forestry Products Research Laboratories at Princes Risborough, hitherto largely neglected by the industry?
With regard to functions (2) and (4), I welcome them most wholeheartedly. I hope that they will be used rigorously to clean up large sections of the industry which, particularly before the war, were guilty of much shoddy production of furniture. When the Council comes to promote modern methods of production and rationalisation, larger units of production, use of the conveyor belt system, longer lines, I hesitate to say whether those small firms in the industry, to which my right hon. Friend referred would be in a position to afford them. What I must ask him is whether, in fact, there is going to be financial assistance made available to these small firms in order to carry out the useful recommendations which may be put forward by the Council.
With regard to the promotion of design, including the establishment or operation of a design centre, this probably is the most important function of the Council. The hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. W. Shepherd) mentioned that that was possibly the reason why retailers were excluded except in one instance from the membership of the Council. Cannot he cast his mind back to the days before the war when a great deal of poor and shoddy design was introduced because of the demands of the retailers?
I hope that small firms who cannot afford designers will be given the benefit of this design centre. It was well known before the war how craftsmen were pressed into designing. They saw the ideas of designers of the bigger firms and by the addition of an ornament or two they considered a new design had been originated. The great advantage of the utility scheme was that it took design in the industry out of the Victorian period with its over-ornate ornamentation, and gave furniture sensible line and form. What we ask for here is that the industry should go forward in design and not backward, that we shall achieve well designed furniture, pleasing to the eye, pleasant to live with, and in conformity with the new design of modern housing. Will the President say what protection will be given to the public against poor design? What powers will the Council have to encourage the use of designs that in fact may be evolved in its design centre?
I am particularly happy to notice function (7) which gives us hope once again that the Council by their encouragement may bring back craftsmanship into the industry. Craftsmanship is dying in this industry and if the Council can, by its technical and artistic education, bring back some of our craftsmanship, then it will have done a most excellent thing. Even if it only brings back youth to the industry, it will have achieved success. The average age among the workers in this industry has increased enormously since the war, and in my own constituency not one per cent. of the youths leaving school enter the industry. What shape in practice will that encouragement take? Does it mean scholarships for apprentices, time off to attend technical classes, grants to technical colleges, or even a chair at a University?
With regard to functions (8) and (9) which deal with the promotion of better conditions in the industry, I think very much more is needed to improve conditions for furniture workers in our furniture workshops. I certainly know in my own experience some very old, badly ventilated, badly-lit workshops where it is extremely difficult to understand how good furniture can be produced at all. Under these functions, will it be permissible for the furniture trade to set up joint production committees, or works

councils, to keep both sides of the industry together, and to stimulate joint participation in handling management and production problems?
Under function (13), with regard to developing export trade, I think it is recognised that the furniture industry is one of our worst exporters. We seem to have neglected that aspect of the sales side of the industry and today, as most people know, the industry mainly exports, antique furniture and reproductions. In-my travels abroad, I have often felt that there was a very big export market for our better British furniture, outside the antique range. Will the Development Council set up some sort of joint export marketing board, with foreign agents and publicity to encourage some of our smaller firms to market their products abroad?
With regard to function (14), the promotion of arrangements for better acquainting the public with the goods supplied by the industry, does that mean that the Development Council will have annual exhibitions? If they do, may I suggest that they be not confined mainly to London and the big cities. Can we not have exhibitions which go on tour and bring our best modern furniture round our smaller towns and villages. In High Wycombe we had an excellent furniture exhibition this year which did a very great deal to acquaint our local public with the latest developments in design and production.
That is all I have to say with regard to the functions of the Development Council. May I refer back for a moment to paragraph 2, which deals with representation? I would suggest to my right hon. Friend that he exercise the most extreme care in the choice of independent members. It is often likely that theirs will be the casting vote between employers and employees. I welcome his suggestion in his speech tonight that he is going to appoint a woman and an engineer to the Council. I feel it is only in this section of the membership of the Council that consumers' interests can be represented. I myself feel we must continually stress the interests of the public in the future development of the industry. I am wondering whether the cost, of £75,000 over a period of three years, which is to be levied on the industry, is really going to be sufficient to deal with the


many functions the Council is undertaking. It is an extremely small sum—£25,000 a year. What other powers have the Council to raise money? I ask my right hon. Friend whether this House will have an annual report from the Council in order to indicate how it is spending the money it is allowed to raise?
In conclusion, I most heartily welcome this Development Council. I believe it will make the furniture industry, once the Cinderella of our national industry, one of the most advanced industries in the country. If I am not out of Order, I would say I do not believe this is the first step towards nationalisation. I think It is the first step away from nationalisation. It may well establish a new pattern for industry organised in the public interest. This Development Council has a very big job to do, and I feel sure that it undertakes it with the best wishes of all sides of this House.

11.18 p.m.

Sir William Darling: I am afraid I cannot follow the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. W. Shepherd) and the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Haire) in welcoming this order. I am struck by the singular fact that here is an arrangement by which 18 persons, none of whom are consumers, are allowed to levy the sum of £25,000 a year on the furniture trade. That strikes me as being a great departure from the furniture trade conditions which we have known in years gone by. I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Bucklow that the consumers' interests ought to be much more adequately represented. One must bear in mind that even those 18 persons are all the nominees of the right hon. Gentleman. They are not independent persons. They are persons who have proved themselves to be smooth, facile, agreeable persons, suitable for his purposes.
The Board of Trade are practically invading the industry, contemptuous of what the consumer may desire, and appointing 18 persons to levy £25,000 a year, which is, roughly speaking, £8 to £10 on every employer in the industry, in order to secure this result. I think it is an unnecessary and unwise departure from the previous voluntary arrangements which have covered the industries of this country. The furniture of this country is

world famous; but that furniture, as the hon. Member for Wycombe has said, is not the product of the Board of Trade's utility designs, but the product of the craftsmen of bygone ages—Chippendale, Adam, Hepplewhite—and the products of the Victorian era. The public at large do not want these designs which are now trumpeted as being, apparently, the pattern upon which British furniture production is to be organised.
The actual details of the order have other objectionable features. I protest that the compulsory registration imposed upon those in the trade is objectionable. Because I enter the trade I am compelled to register myself, and if I fail to do so I have to pay £5 a day until I do so. That is a very serious handicap. I may not believe that I can be successful in the furniture business and may go through months of experimentation before I consider that I am good enough to manufacture furniture and put it on the market; but once I enter the industry of making furniture, no matter whether I fail to get customers, I have to register, and if I fail to do so I am fined £5 a day until I carry out this simple duty.
There are further objections. Borrowing from the bank strikes me as a very ominous thing in the schedule. I do not remember any Statutory Order—and I have seen many—which has suggested this extraordinary recourse. Item 7 says:
The Council may for the purpose of defraying any of their expenses borrow money temporarily from bankers or otherwise.
On what security is this to be done? Who is going to guarantee the account? Is the Board of Trade going to guarantee this extension of financial responsibility? Like the hon. Member for Bucklow, though he is better pleased with the order than I am, I do not like the way the order is bespattered with penalties. Such penalties as fines of £50 and the like appear in these pages with increasing frequency. If this order is the will of the Working Party and of all sections of the trade, and even has the blessing of the President of the Board of Trade, why these penalties? It is odd that this, which is the common wish of the industry as a whole, should have to be spurred and enforced by these penalties.
In the schedule hon. Members will observe that the making of metal furniture is excluded. I take it that the President


of the Board of Trade has considered the very considerable development of this trade and its exclusion from the Council. If this exclusion is continued, will it not give an impetus and stimulus to the metal furniture trade? As metal is in shorter supply than wood, is it desirable to give this section of the trade such stimulus? Hon. Members are aware of enterprises like "Pel," which have entered this industry in competition with the products of High Wycombe and other places. Is it desirable to make this exclusion of this section of the industry? Does the President of the Board of Trade tell the young married couple that wooden beds have his approval but that metal beds are to be discouraged?
I approach this matter with great prejudice. I have known of the building up in the last 200 years of a voluntary organisation of trading in this country. The chamber of commerce movement is some 200 years old—older than the trade unions—and under these voluntary arrangements which have the common support of men and women, of manufacturers, workers and consumers, we have built up no inconsiderable industry. His Majesty's Government have decided to change that pattern. I suggest to them that the voluntary pattern is in accordance with the English tradition, and it is in that pattern that we have raised ourselves to be one of the leading manufacturing countries in the world. Are His Majesty's Government wise in throwing aside what has been a distinctive quality of our industry? I myself, with some experience of the good sense of voluntary organisation, do not give my wholehearted approval to a scheme which is sprinkled with penalties and charged with compulsion, because I believe there are other and better ways for organising industry than that set forth in this order.

11.27 p.m.

Mr. Collins: The hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) has given his individual opinion on a matter on which he has obviously very little knowledge. As a furniture manufacturer and one, therefore, who has a declared interest in this matter and who might be liable to the costs of registration and might even be liable to the pains and penalties of which the hon. Member spoke, I should like to say that the whole of the industry on both sides welcomes

this order wholeheartedly. It has been discussed for a very long time. The hon. Member always mistakes what he regards as individual liberty for real freedom. We had that kind of freedom in the furniture industry prior to the war, and in the space of 20 years I saw promising developments in the furniture industry completely ruined by the kind of liberty to which he advocates a return.
There is no reasonable person in that industry, be he manufacturer or workman, who would not utterly deplore the breaking down of this suggested arrangement, and who would not equally regret any possibility of a return to the former state of affairs. It would create unemployment in the industry; it would bring us back to standards which would be completely deplored; and it would bring the working class people back to the condition where they would have the shoddiest and rottenest type of furniture thrust upon them by devious means—things which we in the furniture industry do not wish to tolerate again. Therefore, we welcome this order. The hon. Member, as we all know, is a person of the highest personal integrity, but if we had other individualists coming into the industry determined to exercise that principle of individual liberty which he so warmly supports, we should again find that with those conditions the industry would be ruined.
I want to deal with one point which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd) with regard to representation of retailers on this Council. I should like the President of the Board of Trade to consider this matter again. The view put forward by the hon. Member for Bucklow was, in my opinion, utterly fallacious. Manufacturers want to do as wide a range of business as possible. They take pride in what their Federation produces, and, while I do not think we want a hopeless multiplicity of designs, I do think we want the greatest number of designs characteristic of our own firms. If anyone attended a recent luncheon of retail furniture distributors, I think he would agree that one of the main reasons why the manufacturers objected to the inclusion of retailers was that they had to listen to the speeches on that occasion, some of which lasted for three-quarters of an hour, and were somewhat vituperative; if they had retailers on the Council, they may fear


that they would get no work done at all.
But there are disadvantages in having only one member of the Council with a special knowledge of distribution. The matters in the second schedule are not such that they are not of special interest to retailers. Paragraph (4) deals with promoting the production of products conforming to minimum standards of quality; surely, in this connection, retailers are more in touch with the consuming public than the manufacturers? Paragraph (5) refers to promoting the better definition of trade descriptions and, in this, retailers could give valuable advice. Paragraph (12) reads:
Promoting or undertaking research into matters relating to the consumption or use of goods and services supplied by the industry for which the Council is established.
On that particular item, retailers can co-operate with a great deal of knowledge. Paragraph (14) in the second schedule is another item where the retailers can undertake the job better than anybody else. So, for the reasons which I have given, I think the retailers should have at least two members on this Council. There is apparently no intention of setting up a retailers' development council, and I think it might well be wholly unnecessary; but in this industry there is a sense of grievance about the matter and a little common sense should remove the grievance by adding another member, thus making for better co-operation between the whole industry.
I congratulate the Minister on having brought forward this order tonight and thank him for it. I regret that this is only the second order made under the provisions of the 1947 Act. Roughly a year ago when that Act was before the House, I expressed the fear that it would not be particularly effective, and that anticipation appears to have been justified, but I hope that this order may be the forerunner of many more. I have views about this particular order, which I have expressed, but it is a great step forward. In his earlier announcement at Question time today, the President of the Board of Trade spoke of freeing the industry from certain controls.
The President of the Board of Trade said some time ago that he hoped to increase supplies of timber. If that happens, we may get to the stage that,

unless the Development Council has put in useful work, there will be the kind of situation which the hon. Member for South Edinburgh desires. It may arise in spite of the Development Council. What I am afraid of is that the last vestige of the utility scheme shall go before the Development Council can get to work. That would be disastrous.
What is really needed is for the Development Council to devise means of maintaining those standards which have been achieved during the last few years. I am not talking of the highest possible standards of craftsmanship, but of the lower and medium ranges where the standard of quality is much higher than it was before. That is what we do not wish to lose. Therefore in welcoming this order and wishing it every success, I hope that the Development Council and the Minister will pay particular attention to this vital matter of quality, and see that the position which has been gained does not slip away, in order that the industry may develop and play its full part in the national economy.

11.37 p.m.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: As one who, like the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. W. Shepherd) and other Members sat through the various stages of the Debates on the Industrial Organisation and Development Act last year, I naturally regard with special interest the first fruits of the Act. The interest was quickened with sympathy when we were told that this order meets with the general approval of both sides of the industry. As has already been mentioned, the real reason why an order of this description comes before the House at all, apart from the fact that it is statutorily necessary, is for the protection of the consumer. I should like to ask the President of the Board of Trade one or two questions on how this order is to be made effective, in regard to the production of products conforming to the minimum standards of quality and the certification of products. May I ask what sanction, if any, the Development Council is going to have in order that a product, once certified, maintains its standard? How is the Development Council to ensure that?
There are other matters where one wishes to ensure that the consumer's interest is protected, but I am not quite sure


whether the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Haire) was on the right lines when asking for the protection of the consumer in the matter of design. Surely that is up to the consumer himself. I am much more interested that the furniture should conform with specification, and that we should make certain that goods do conform to specification rather than that they conform with certain designs which are more or less uniform. If one goes into a showroom today, one cannot but notice, for example, that sideboards are exactly the same height, breadth and length.

Mr. Haire: The hon. Gentleman cannot have been into showrooms recently, because there are 20 designs in the utility range.

Mr. Macpherson: I am aware there are many designs, but the hon. Member knows as well as I do that designs become obsolete, and if he goes into a showroom he will find that sideboards have a tendency to be very much the same height, length and breadth.

Mr. Collins: They are all sideboards.

Mr. Macpherson: They are all sideboards. That is not an observation I should have expected from one with so much knowledge of the subject as the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins).
The other subject to which I should like to refer has been referred to by almost every hon. Member who has spoken, and it is the question of retailers' representation. On that matter I should have thought that one view that could be expressed is that there should be no representation at all because, in fact, it would be possible for the Development Council to be in relation with the retailers' organisations and get a very wide view from them. That is one view.
The other view is that there should be representation, and in that case it must be adequate representation. I think hon. Members who have special experience of this trade would agree with the view expressed to me that in different parts of the country tastes vary. It may be that the one member who happened to be nominated to this Council would not be able to speak for the whole of the

country. One might, for example, want one member to represent the South of England, another for Manchester, and another for Scotland, where, as I know, design tends to be very different. I do not see that it is possible to defend the retention of only one member in this way. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to say what happens supposing this one member is unable to attend meetings. Is there an alternative?

Mr. Wilson: He can send a deputy.

Mr. Macpherson: That is not in the order, but we are glad to know it. Finally, I fully agree that the main function of this representative should be to be in a position to say what the consumer actually requires. There may be a considerable divergence of opinion among retailers' representatives on this matter, and I should have thought it would always be desirable to have more than one opinion on the matter. I think it would be extremely desirable in cases where there is doubt, to be able to call in a given number of advisers. I should also like to see to what extent this is going to be possible. In the main, I think it is essential that there should be either no representation at all or if, on the other hand, the two sides of the industry are opposed to this greater representation on the grounds that it would over-weight the voting one way or the other, surely it would be possible to include more representatives without voting power?

Resolved:
That the Draft Furniture Industry Development Council Order, 1948, a copy of which was presented on 9th November, be approved.

COAST PROTECTION ORDERS

Resolved:
That the Draft Happisburgh to Yarmouth Coast Protection Order, 1948, a copy of which was presented on 26th October, be approved."—[Mr. J. Edwards.]

Resolved:
That the Draft Walney Island Coast Protection Order, 1948, a copy of which was presented on 26th October, be approved."—[Mr. J. Edwards.]

AFRICAN COLONIES (TSETSE FLY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Popplewell.]

11.45 p.m.

Squadron-Leader Kinghorn: Despite the lateness of the hour, I want to bring to the attention of hon. Members before they go home the campaign which has been carried on for some time against the ravages of the tsetse fly in parts of our colonial territories in Africa. The results of this campaign are so important and so vital to our welfare now and in the future that I am prepared to open this Debate even at this time of night.
The tsetse fly, as everybody knows, is the source of sleeping sickness with colonial peoples, and even with whites, in East Africa. Speaking of its ravages and its death-dealing destruction in these territories in an Adjournment Debate in the House on 14th June of this year, the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, replying to the Debate, said these very striking words in referring to development in East Africa:
The area of this vast region, greater than Western Europe, is occupied by some 15 million people. It might be asked: why is that? The reason is that three-quarters of this vast area is run, organised and ruled—if such terms can be applied to an insect—by the tsetse fly. In fact, the humans and animals—savage as well as tame animals—are crowded into one-quarter of the territory and that is the quarter in which there is the lowest rainfall. The broad belt of high rainfall comes up from Northern Rhodesia, through Tanganyika and Uganda, and it is in that potentially fertile area that the tsetse fly holds sway."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th June, 1948; Vol. 452, c. 214, 215.]
This is the vast territory in East Africa alone. If we include our territories in West Africa, we find that the total area under tsetse fly is 4½ million square miles, which is twice the area of the United States and 75 times the area of England and Wales. That is a colossal part of the world—territory administered through this House. It is not ruled even by the king of the beasts, but is really ruled by an insect. I could give many examples, and I will give one or two which show how the sway of this insect is of such paramount importance in Sierra Leone and Gambia, where almost 100 per cent. of the territory is given over to the ravages

of the tsetse fly. If we go to the East Coast, we find that in Uganda the figure is slightly less than 80 per cent. In Tanganyika, which is vital not only to this country but to Africa and the whole world, if we consider only the success on which we are all banking from the groundnuts scheme, 75 per cent. of the area is covered by the depredations of the tsetse fly.
This insect carries about the cause of sleeping sickness, not only for humans but also for cattle, and therefore it is probably the greatest barrier we have against great development in those areas. It is a most vital barrier to development because it prevents mixed farming from being developed in those territories. If we are to have an increased expansion of human activity in East Africa, which so many on both sides of the House hope to see in the near future, we must be able to carry out mixed farming as we do in this country.
Previous Governments obviously have not been unaware of what this terrible insect does, for in 1945, under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, large grants of money were made in order to combat the sway of the tsetse fly. There was one other instance in East Africa of £275,000, and for West Africa the sum spent, or ear-marked for this work and for research, was £207,000. A further £175,000 was set aside for research into the use of insecticides. It would be of use to hon. Members here, and to the world at large, if the Undersecretary could give us some indication of what use has been made of these really big sums of money. I should like to know whether the use of modern insecticides, the success of which we saw towards the end of the war in the use of D.D.T., has suggested a real solution to the tsetse fly problem; and whether all the known resources of modern science which have been put to work on insecticides in the last few years have really been made full use of.
Colonial Governments, especially in the lifetime of this Parliament, have shown that they are interested in this matter, and a very interesting report has just been published of a successful experiment in Nigeria, where there has been some real success in wiping out the tsetse fly and other evils from which the natives are suffering. It would be interesting to know whether there has


been further activity of that kind. A further question I would like to ask is what steps have been taken by the Colonial Office, in collaboration with other Colonial Offices in Africa which must be interested—the Portuguese, the Belgian and the French. It is no use getting rid of any insect on British territory if they are not also doing the same thing over the invisible frontier which separates it from other parts. Many Colonial representatives have been over here during the past few months, and no doubt they have been discussing these matters.
Among the principal factors are; first, the African cannot get an adequate meat diet; second, he does not see enough fresh milk, butter or cheese; and three, as I have mentioned, mixed farming can-not be embarked on, and the old antediluvian methods of the African cannot be wiped out. The great thing which we, as leaders of the civilised world, want is the 'opportunity of developing the animal industries. It would not only help the African, but it would also enable him to produce a surplus to export, and in that way help him to help himself, and thus help us to help the world at large to tackle the problem, which is far greater than anything we have discussed in this House, and on which Sir John Boyd Orr has warned us, that the world is marching slowly to starvation. Africa I believe is going to be a great factor in avoiding that calamity. I hope that the Undersecretary will give us as useful and lucid a reply as he did the last time we brought up this question of East African development.

11.54 p.m.

Mr. Skeffington: We are all grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for having introduced this subject. There were few factors which made such an impression on my mind when I was in Africa recently as the problem of the tsetse fly. As he has said, and indeed as I said in the Debate on Colonial Affairs, it is a very solemn thought that over two-thirds of Uganda and Tanganyika, and one-third of Kenya, are controlled not by the hon. Gentleman but by the tsetse fly. When we realise the seriousness of the problem, we are all anxious to know what progress has been made. I travelled over millions of acres of first-class grassland in Uganda which

are denied to cattle because of the tsetse fly. If we could only overcome it, we should find a new source of meat, especially for the Africans, whose need is equally great as that of the rest of the world.
I should like to put some questions to the Under-Secretary. I was astonished to find that the veterinary and bacteriological services in these three great territories were isolated, and were unaware of the development in each other's domain. There seemed to be no common effort to exchange ideas. I understand that there is a unified service now, but what progress has been made, and is there any arrangement for keeping all the territories fully in touch with development?
I should also like to know if there is any further information about cattle inoculation. In the past attempts have been made to inoculate cattle to prevent them from suffering from the parasite carried by the tsetse, but most farmers decided to run the risk of the fly rather than inoculation because inoculation certainly killed the animals, if the tsetse did not. The use of a drug called "7555" was introduced in April, and I should like to know if it has proved as useful as it was hoped it would be. Has any further provision been made for spraying insecticide from the air? My hon. Friend said, in the last Debate, that there were two aeroplanes and one helicopter seconded to this work. We are grateful for that, but for an area as large as the whole of Western Europe, it is not enough, and I should like to think we were taking more serious steps.

11.58 p.m.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: It seems to me that the most important matter which emerges from the Debate which my hon. and gallant Friend has done well to initiate tonight is how far the work has been co-ordinated so that all the Great Powers interested in this problem can have the full benefit of the resources available. As my hon. and gallant Friend said, we live cheek by jowl with the Belgians and the French in Africa, and it is very little use our clearing our own area if the problem is being treated differently in another part. We have seen some interesting pictures in "The Times," of the good work which is being done by what I believe is called


"aggressive clearings." I should like to know whether there is some prospect of this being dealt with on a super-national level. We know also that much good work is being done by mass survey treatment.
With regard to the cattle in West Africa, will the Minister make some reference to the staffing position? When in West Africa I was impressed with the grave shortage of veterinary surgeons and trained people in control of this branch. What is being done, at a time when there are professional men who can command good salaries in this country, to make conditions attractive in that part of the world so that the best of our good young men can go out without unduly sacrificing their careers and families?
The tsetse fly is one of the great scourges which afflicts Africa at this moment. It is most vital to the indigenous population to know whether they are going to be raised to a decent standard of life and given an opportunity of obtaining a mixed diet, of obtaining the milk and meat and the proteins to which my hon. and gallant Friend referred. This is a most urgent problem.

12.1 a.m.

Mr. Follick: There is very little time, but I should like to say a word or two, as I have made a study on the spot of this question. I would like to correct an error on the part of the hon. and gallant Member for Great Yarmouth (Squadron-Leader Kinghorn). I think he referred to "sleepy sickness." There are two different things—sleepy sickness and sleeping sickness. Sleepy sickness is not purely an African disease, whereas sleeping sickness is due solely to tsetse-injected elements.
When the Germans were in possession of their colony in East Africa, before the first World War, at Dar-es-Salam, they had one of the finest tropical diseases experimental research laboratories in the world. Since we have taken over that Colony, this wonderful laboratory has been absolutely neglected. When I was in Dar-es-Salam, I went to see the place and it is not used at all—just left to go to pieces. I think the famous Kleine actually worked at this laboratory.
Between the years 1901 and 1906, in Uganda alone 200,000 people died of this

disease. So that it is a thing that is decimating the population of Africa. I do not think it has yet been found out whether it is the fly, the animal or the man who carries the disease. That is still in process of being investigated. The disease has not only not been got under, it has actually spread, and there are apprehensions at present because it is spreading from Mozambique into Swaziland and the human and animal population of Swaziland will suffer unless it is held up.
I was in Victoria Falls along with Chief Justice Sir Herbert Cox and found five of the flies on the sleeve of my jacket, and I am just wondering if colour has not some attraction. Sir Herbert Cox was wearing a white jacket and did not get any of them, while I was wearing a brown jacket and they made towards that colour. I know the Minister wants to answer. I only give those few experiences I had while in East Africa.

12.4 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Rees-Williams): I am very much obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for Great Yarmouth (Squadron-Leader Kinghorn), and to other hon. Members who have spoken, for drawing the attention of the House to this most important question. Even though it is a late hour, it is a matter which is of such vital importance to Africa and to the whole world, that I think we might well spend this short time in considering it. I believe this tsetse fly problem is the African problem No. 1. If we can solve it, we shall have gone a long way towards solving the economic, social and, eventually, the political problems of Africa. It affects a vast area, as we heard from the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth, and its solution will change the whole face of Africa and the economy of the world.
The trouble with tsetse is that there are so many species of fly. Some affect cattle and some, human beings. They live on different types of vegetation, and feed on different types of animal, so that measures which are effective against one type have no effect upon others. In British West Africa alone some 10,000,000 people are constantly at the risk of sleeping sickness. The effects upon the cattle population, and consequently upon soil fertility and the balance


of farming in Africa, are such as were mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Great Yarmouth. I have been asked by several hon. Members how the problem has been tackled and how we are dealing with it. I hope, so far as I can, to answer them here and now.
Certain areas have been cleared and re-settled by various methods. First by selective clearing of the bush, that is, by clearing the type of vegetation on which the tsetse feeds. Secondly, by the use of drugs, both as cures and as prophylactics in human beings and cattle. The drug which the hon. Member for West Lewisham (Mr. Skeffington) mentioned has had an extremely good effect as a cure, and is now undergoing field tests as a prophylactic. We are not quite certain whether it is the complete answer, but there are good possibilities that this is so. Thirdly by spraying with insecticides, although it is too early to form an opinion on the effectiveness of this method.
Two aircraft have been specially fitted and are now in East Africa, and a helicopter is on order. But sending out large fleets of aircraft or helicopters to Africa is not in itself an answer; the research side, and the scientists who have to study the results of these experiments, must be the deciding factor. It is easier to get aircraft than scientists. Fourthly there is the control of game, which has been dealt with on a large scale in Southern Rhodesia. We are examining the results of this.
We have also made available for research since 1945 more than £1 million from the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund. This money is being spent either upon actual research or on development work on the problem of the tsetse fly. The Colonial Governments also have spent a good deal of money on this side of the work. We are also happy in having the assistance of industrial bodies in research. The I.C.I. group and Shell are joining with us in this fight against this noxious insect.
Then there is international collaboration. The hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. A. Edward Davies) asked me a question on this point. There was a conference at Brazzaville this year at which this whole problem was thrashed out with

other Powers which have African responsibilities; and in London soon there is to be the first meeting of the International Scientific Committee which will co-ordinate and direct sleeping sickness research in both Europe and Africa. Veterinary surgery is a matter which was also dealt with by the hon. Member for Burslem. We have been very short of veterinary officers, but recently we had a conference with the Registrar of the Royal Veterinary College in London, and also with an official of the Veterinary Association, and we have now got, I think, terms which will appeal to the profession as a whole. I do not think that before, either in status or terms, we were in a position to offer veterinary surgeons satisfactory inducements for them to enter the Colonial Service. The old conditions and terms no longer obtain however, and we have now got satisfactory conditions for veterinary surgeons in this important and interesting work.
Here I must pause to mention three reports by scientists which are available to hon. Members. They are those of Professor Buxton, Professor Davey and Dr. Nash. I commend them to the attention of hon. Members in this House, for they will find detailed accounts of the work of the scientists for many years past in these fields. There is also reference to the more humble workers, the boys who catch the flies. Their work is important because it is the basis of the whole of the scientific work that is done. The standard of measurement of the fly density is known as F.B.H.—flies per boy hour, irrespective of the kind of boy—short, fat, tall, or thin, who does the catching. To ensure success a combination of all the methods referred to must be and is being used. The key to success is occupation by man of areas cleared by scientific methods and the putting of his cattle on those areas. Several successive stages have to be gone through. First, there is the clearing of the tsetse, then the introduction of water, crops, stocks, cattle and also the making of communications.
Finally, there is the settlement of people in those areas. Together these steps should produce the answer to the tsetse problem. For example, there is the Anchau resettlement scheme, which has been mentioned. This was made possible by means of a


Colonial Development and Welfare grant. There is also a settlement scheme in the Gold Coast and a scheme in Tanganyika called the Shinyanga scheme. We must, I think, distinguish between the types of development which can take place in the more fertile, and those which can take place in less fertile areas. Where land is quite fertile and people can go and live and farm in the normal way there is no difficulty.
The three stages may be put into operation fairly quickly and people settled at a density of not less than 20 to the square mile. In the less fertile areas, however, if there is a density of more than 20 to the square mile, we are up against a difficulty, because through that infertility there will be a cumulative reduction in the standard of living. For that particular

type of country, of which there is a good deal in Africa and particularly East Africa, there will have to be schemes not of peasant proprietorship but of large-scale cattle ranching. It will be possible, we hope, to establish in those areas State ranches or co-operative ranches. These will provide much beef for the people of the territory and possibly for an export trade to this country and to other countries in need of beef. We already have a team in Tanganyika investigating this new form of enterprise.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock on Monday evening and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at a Quarter-past Twelve o'Clock.